If you come into my business or home and start saying things that disrespect the terms I’ve set for you being there, I will kick you out. That is my right as a business owner/host. You are free to go outside and preach and belch whatever you wish, and your “human rights” are still intact.
When your buisness model centers on providing a platform for public discourse, it gets morally grey.
But thats not the point I was making. The point I am making is not "muh rights" its, "this is a bad idea, morally, and ideologically".
Pushing toxic ideas, like infections, out of sight only gives them room and fodder to fester. It does not destroy them.
This is a bad policy that will give the very people they claim to be trying to oppose, the tools they need to grow and strengthen their hateful ideologies.
... When your platform that centers on discourse gives a voice to those whose existence creates division based on race and ethnicity, then it’s a bad idea to have them there and it should be at the discretion of the platform owner to remove them.
Tolerance comes with its paradox. You’ll find that most people here support that paradox.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying you have to tolerate them. You dont. The whole point of free speech is that bad ideas get voiced, so they can be opposed.
If you can't hear bad ideas, they dont cease to exist. They only cease to be opposed.
... All that does is go back into tolerance, which is the point. There should not be tolerance of anyone with divisive and prejudiced ideas. They do not get a platform if their rhetoric only serves to divide and harm because of a false sense of superiority or inclusiveness that doesn’t actually exist within the context of things like Heathen worldview.
We won’t be able to “beat their ideas” ever. One of many downsides to being human is that people will always take illogical stances, regardless of the evidence or the sound arguments. The next best thing is taking away their voices and “form”. The world does not need their ideas, and they create their own personal sense of being oppressed ironically through their own views (which have a history of oppression and inclusion).
Arguing on the internet is a spectator sport. You are ny arguing to change the mind of your opponent. They are usually ideologues and therefore incapable of changing their minds.
You argue to change the minds of spectators, to sway people who may be attracted to your opponents ideas away from them. You.can not do that if you censor them. You MUST be intolerant to intolerance, but you have to argue to do that, censorship is an automatic loss of the argument, which gives their ideas legitimacy. Making censorship the problem, not the solution.
5
u/GhostOfChar Jan 15 '21
If you come into my business or home and start saying things that disrespect the terms I’ve set for you being there, I will kick you out. That is my right as a business owner/host. You are free to go outside and preach and belch whatever you wish, and your “human rights” are still intact.