48
submitted 11 months ago by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Sure, it doesn't make your message right.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

[-] moody@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago

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

[-] jet@hackertalks.com -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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 4 points 11 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 -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 11 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
48 points (70.0% liked)

Canada

7168 readers
321 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