It’s been more than a week since MPP Sarah Jama was booted from the Ontario NDP caucus and censured by the Ontario government for daring to name Israel as an Apartheid state. It’s been more than a week since CUPE Ontario President Fred Hahn agreed to
  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    213·
    1 year ago

    We should never celebrate deplatforming people for unpopular or evil opinions

    Bullshit, people with evil opinions keep others from expressing themselves, tolerating them means deplatforming others and means they have more space to recruit.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      44·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. The central example is a NDP member being censured by the party for her views. THAT IS WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY IS. She would have also been removed if she started arguing for tax cuts to the wealthy and restrictions on union activity. Even perfectly legitimate political opinions can make you totally unfit to be a representative of a political party. Words have consequences and political parties are social structures with social rules. Cry me a river, this isn’t a free-speech issue.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      414·
      1 year ago

      Then you get this situation the article speaks of, people being de-platformed for speaking against evil in the world.

        • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
          27·
          1 year 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.

            • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
              37·
              1 year 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
                62·
                1 year 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.comEnglish
                  25·
                  1 year 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.