4 ms·

> yet legitimizing them at the same time by associating their name with this kind of person at all. Discussing things does not "legitimize" them. No one is re

> yet legitimizing them at the same time by associating their name with this kind of person at all. Discussing things does not "legitimize" them. No one is required to read The New Yorker. > Just because of his far-out-there views? Probably the length of time he's held and promulgated them. > someone on the Internet will agree with you We used to think that connecting disparate groups of people together was a good thing. I have no idea when that changed but apparently it's the style now to use the awesome power of the internet to deny people their individuality out of gross fear. > think it's a good thing You should have to prove it's a bad thing. Not the other way around.

antisthenes 1y ago
> Discussing things does not "legitimize" them. No one is required to read The New Yorker. Well, good thing you put that in quotes, because you seem to be using some definition of the word legitimize that is only apparent to you and not the general public. Discussing things does legitimize them, because it allots them time that could have been used for something else. > Probably the length of time he's held and promulgated them. Many people hold views their entire lives, or at least decades. I don't see New Yorker or Wikipedia write articles about them. > You should have to prove it's a bad thing. Not the other way around. You understand what context means, or just trolling?