Conversation

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"

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 1, 2018

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

Aella

@Aella_Girl

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.

4:48 PM · Feb 1, 2018

Replying to

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.

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 1, 2018

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.