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"
-
-
We should not prevent them from speaking, but we don't have to be nice about their reprehensible opinions. Racism and homophobia openly expressed, or use of dog whistle terms can and should be attacked. LGBTQ folks ask for respect first because they are actually oppressed today
-
But let people speak and openly state their evil, then judge them :) although I find that when pressed people who previously openly expressed racist opinions deny they ever did it, or that it was some form of humor
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
To expand on that, the moral signaling filter requirement ensures that there's a baseline of understanding that doesn't have to be debated. Some groups have spent a lifetime arguing first principles they consider obvious, and don't want to spend energy on them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fairly understanding when they constantly have to fight against people arguing they have no right to exist.
-
I have literally never heard anybody in my life say that anyone from the queer spectrum have no right to exist, and I used to be a fundamentalist Christian.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This last tweet is the only one I may have a point of disagreement with. There's a difference between not interfering with someone's right to speak and being obligated to listen to them. If they don't want to have a discussion they don't have to.
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.