• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months 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
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months 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
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months 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.