this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
42 points (68.8% liked)

Canada

7106 readers
288 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's just another variant of the paradox of tolerance.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Finna deplatform you right now with the block button, babes πŸ’ž

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Sorry to have offended you. I didn't mean to cause you distress.