One cheap debate trick is reframing opposing opinions as having some sort of 'moral failure' and therefore foregoing all rights.
For example, lots of attempts to shut down 'open debate' do so by framing the opposing opinions not as wrong, but as as "interruptive"
Conversation
Replying to
For example, this piece of work that showed up on my FB feed. They're justifying shutting down dissenting speech not because of wrongness, but because they "exhaust" people and implying everyone has to stop what they're doing to turn around to "deal with" these opinions.
The following media includes potentially sensitive content. Change settings
View
3
4
25
This is the same as shutting down speech because it comes from someone outside of the class of people "morally approved" to express opinions about things - for example, refusing to allow "oppressor" classes to speak.
2
2
13
To be clear, I'm not saying that the "oppressor" classes are necessarily right, but only that we shouldn't prevent people from speaking because of moral judgments.
If your position is strong and you understand it well, then you shouldn't be threatened by by dissenters.
3
6
28
I also feel like the queer community suffers deeply from this problem. In most of my interactions with them they require very high 'moral signalling' before they agree to engage with any discussion or questions. They seem to feel highly threatened by dissent.
5
23
Replying to
Listening to speech is not an infinite resource. You are working on an app that is based on the struggle to solve this problem. The problem exists in other contexts, including academia (tho the people you quote are noxious.)
