Why because it's de-platformed must people talk less about it? — Pseudonym
Isn't that the point and the goal of de-platforming? Whether it works is a different thing. — BlueBanana
The argument I'm trying to make is an argument about arguments. Seems to me, people have a lot of difficulty being charitable to their opponents. It's too easy to profoundly misunderstand each other. I don't trust your hubris on this, that you would do more good than harm as Grand Curator of ideas. I have the same hubris and I don't trust it in myself either. — Roke
These utilitarian calculations you're doing are impossible.Freedom to express earnestly held ideas and beliefs just seems foundational to the human condition to me. — Roke
... it's not that I'm correct. It's that self-righteous meddling is an indulgence that should be held in check. — Roke
For a start, there are plenty of people saying that Trump got elected from people reacting against what they saw as an excess of authoritarian political correctness, incorporating such things as harrassing people that express unpopular views. Even if that's only a tiny bit true, the effects are enormous - apparently it could even end up in a nuclear holocaust.I'm struggling to find an example from history which demonstrates the effect you're claiming, perhaps you could provide the examples you're working from? — Pseudonym
Then the issue would not have moved them to vote against whatever cause the students support. So they will vote based on some other (quite possibly irrational) consideration. But the bias against the progressive cause has been removed, so the expected number of votes against progressivity has reduced. That's a win for the progressive camp.Lets say the students behave and let the person speak, some academic responds in the media rebutting his racist claims (though what would have prevented him from doing so anyway I don't know but we'll skip over that for now). What difference would that have made to your voter? — Pseudonym
The voter will probably never hear what the racist says, because they didn't go to the rally, and the rally won't make the TV news, because it was only the violent demonstrations that made it newsworthy. The demonstrators were essentially providing free publicity for the racist's cause.what's going to happen when the racists speaks, tells everyone how badly treated white minorities are in some ghettos, how positive discrimination is robbing white people of jobs, how white girls can't even walk the street in areas dominated by immigrants? — Pseudonym
We differ there. I think people are impressed by dignified protest. I think of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. And Nelson Mandela only became an international hero after he had been in jail long enough, and conducted himself in such a dignified manner, that people had forgotten he was arrested for arms offences. In Northern Ireland the most notable phenomenon leading up to the Good Friday agreement was not the violence of the IRA and UDA, but the increasing size and prevalence of peace marches.People are not so impressed by dignified protest that they're going to turn away from the persuasive and powerful rhetoric that's saying exactly what they want to hear just because the opposition to it are well-behaved. — Pseudonym
I think people are impressed by dignified protest. — andrewk
The voter will probably never hear what the racist says, because they didn't go to the rally, and the rally won't make the TV news, because it was only the violent demonstrations that made it newsworthy. — andrewk
But it just occurred to me that maybe you're American (apparently many people on here are). If so then the biggest platform problem you've got is that your head of state is a fascist. So he can get horrifically mean and discriminatory views on the national news simply via twitter. — andrewk
I think that's exactly the correct response in that case. I hope it lasts. Do you think May will give in and invite him over at some stage, despite the unpopularity of such a move with the British people?For some reason revealing of my own unacceptable prejudice I'm slightly offended that you think I'm American. Anyway, I'm English, Our biggest problem is the BNP, UKIP etc., but the problem of Trump I see as an example, not an exception, and the British response has been instrumental. We've basically said that we don't want him over here to speak, that nothing he's got to say is of any interest to us. I think that's a very powerful expression of the contempt in which we hold his views, much more powerful than letting him over here and debating them, as if they had any kind of legitimate reasons that might require some thought. — Pseudonym
I think that's exactly the correct response in that case. I hope it lasts. Do you think May will give in and invite him over at some stage, despite the unpopularity of such a move with the British people? — andrewk
Can someone define what exactly is meant by de-platforming? How exactly does it work? — Chany
What justification can be given to de-platform racists while not de-platforming other groups? — Chany
First, I'm not sure that the extremes of rationality or irrationality required for the argument to work hold true. Some people are more prone to rationality in some areas of their life than others. — Chany
Second, I don't see how de-platforming becomes irrelevant if people are rational; "you might find an argument stating on the Dark Web" doesn't seem like that strong of a position. — Chany
Third, rational argument may be "best" for reasons other than pursuading opposition, which it seems to be operating as. I may use rational arguments in educational settings in order to shut down and redicule the absurdity of racist claims, — Chany
"I believe that de-platforming a racist position can cause a small but sizable number of people to garner sympathy and potential support and I also believe that rational arguments against racism is a good way of stopping the spread of these beliefs." With that, I'm not sure the paradox exists. — Chany
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.