Conversation

Your worldview is oriented around what you think is good; people who disagree will necessarily then be working for things you think are more harmful. "What you want is more harmful than what I want" is a basic function of disagreement and isn't an excuse to end discussion.

309

Aella

@Aella_Girl

I'm always bothered when people argue that I need to be deplatformed because my views are harmful. Ofc no shit you think they're harmful! I think yours are harmful too! That's why we're having this discussion in the first place!

6:08 PM · Aug 14, 2020

Replying to

Right but treating all topics with such acceptance could be uplifting bad bad things. Are there certain people, not topics worth entirely ignoring? I.E. don't go to beer hall in 1930 to hear Adolf speak? An idea around bad faith arguers?

Replying to

I don't ignore people just because they are harmful (unless I'm actively trying to protect myself from them directly hurting me, like with stalkers) if I could have tried to have a discussion with hitler and maybe changed his mind, I would have.

Show replies

Replying to

Ok but you're forgetting that the mob is always right

Replying to

plus, trying to silence someone instead of providing genuine criticism is very lazy

Replying to

gotta love asymmetric tactics applied to symmetric disagreements!

Replying to

Probably true for zero-sum games or conflict games; otoh positive-sum games or mistake games generally admit that there are multiple routes to the same endpoint and harm is a matter of cost or uneven benefits I believe reframes are a good starting point for further negotiation