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"
-
-
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.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This isn't a well evidenced position. The point isn't whether the debaters win or lose. The point is whether the audience are convinced by their ideas. No matter how compelling an argument is, a number of that audience won't agree. 1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because of this, debating fascists doesn't win the argument as effectively as shutting it down. Their freedom to espouse fascistic ideas creates dissenters. That is why the moral position exists- the evidence of history shows where those ideas end.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.