3 ms·

In the US, that definition has only ever applied to the government. And it should only ever apply to the government. > Shouting the opposing side down so that

In the US, that definition has only ever applied to the government. And it should only ever apply to the government. > Shouting the opposing side down so that they cannot speak does nothing but make the situation worse. You might feel like you win a short term win by deplatforming someone but it causes further radicalization. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you are on you will not convince the other side without actually engaging in good faith discussions. Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone?

bostonsre 4y ago
> Are you suggesting we moderate and apply a little restraint to someone's speech because of the consequences of radicalizing someone? Yes. Why not try to engage them in a discussion to try to convince them? If you truly believe in your viewpoint and want it to prevail, don't you think engaging with them and convincing them of your viewpoint would be better for whatever you believe in in the long run than simply muting the opposing viewpoint?