Ah, er, uhm......I meant to say: "This very fine, lovely forum …...that is full of deranged lefties."
Changing the consciousnesses of an entire country takes a very long time. Banning freedom of speech, despite it being regressive and/or stupid, will make it take even longer.
People want to be able to say what ever without any consequences People - I want to say some rude vile evil **** . .but I think you won't like me after I say it Other People - You are probably Right. An we won't support your business People - Welll that is just unfair! . . Rocket River
Not sure which angle you are coming from (or going to) here, but it took about 20 years for us to get to the current sorry state of our national dialogue -- where "progressives" feel "assaulted" by those who wish to make use of their first amendment rights. Then, "deplatforming" and all the rest. So, then I guess the question would be -- is 20 years a long time? If one has lived more than a few decades -- the answer is no, it's really not that long. But, where we go from here is anyone's guess. My guess would be that this type of "deplatforming" cannot go on for long. The Prez will take some action if it continues, and public opinion is growing against the social media giants, and their censorship.
Nope, it is not. But feel free to build your own. People want truth not made up conspiracy bullshit. DD
Basically what I'm saying is that racism is bad but you have to let the racist have their freedoms of speech so as to not embolden them by restricting them. An emboldened group/ideology is a dangerous one. On the other hand, let them have their freedom to announce how ignorant they are and they will largely be ignored and usually won't grow. The risk is legitimizing by restricting. I've used the example before that I wish my racist and discriminatory neighbors have the rights and confidence to post signs expressing said ideas and what not. It would be clear for me who to avoid in my day to day. As it stands they are closeted and it makes it more difficult to navigate day to day.
I pretty much agree with all of this -- I believe in the marketplace of ideas. If someone puts forth a bad idea, the marketplace of ideas will shut it down or ostracize it. I'm amazed at the lack of foresight by those who want to censor and de-platform. #1) it legitimizes bad ideas, as you say and #2) the censorship "gun" can always be turned around in a few years, on those who advocate it now. My only potential quibble with your post is the reference to "racism." This charge is being thrown around way too much these days, usually by those that want to shut down their opponents' arguments. The scary thing is that this tactic is working in the UK and Europe. Here in the USA, thank goodness, many people are beginning to realize the mendacity of this tactic. I actually don't think there is very much racism these days. That is to say, hatred of someone merely for their ethnic identity. Now, there's a lot of prejudice, yes, but I would argue that this prejudice is against those who live different and conflicting lifestyles, rather than pigment of skin. It's a somewhat subtle distinction that is probably lost on most -- but it's an important distinction, IMO.
