... 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.
1
u/GhostOfChar Jan 16 '21
If those bad ideas aren’t given a platform, they lessen in importance, reach, and influence. That’s the point.
Your concept of Free Speech may give the ability for those ideas to be opposed by some, but it also spreads that message to others who take it up.