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
    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      27·
      8 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.

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