Do not say we have free speech in Canada (noraloreto.substack.com)

submitted 2 years ago by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] moody@lemmings.world 3 points 2 years ago

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

[-] jet@hackertalks.com -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.