• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Clearly we have a philosophical divide. We value different things in this world. We are both “right” to our own philosophies.

    If one group can make another voiceless i think that is a larger risk to the human condition, but I see where your coming from.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m very consistent in my views, I do not tolerate anyone being de-platformed. I am intolerant of de-platforming. I do not tolerate anyone trying to remove the voice of anyone else.

        I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. - Poppel The Open Society and It’s Enemies

        De-platforming is a form of rhetorical suppression, as OPs article points out.

        • moody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which means that you tolerate intolerance.

          as long as we can counter them by rational argument

          The saying goes that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

          De-platforming is a means to show that the platform doesn’t want to be associated with specific content. Being against de-platforming means you are on the side of forced speech.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ve never heard the term forced speech before, the only references I can find are legal referring to compelled testimony in court. Can you give me a reference so I can better understand you?

            The saying goes that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

            I’m afraid I missed that part of Open Society, my understanding is the intolerance of tolerance was making it criminal to have calls to violence, at least as I understood the book.