Conversation

Aella
@Aella_Girl
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"
4
60
Aella
@Aella_Girl
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.
3
25
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.
2
13
Aella
@Aella_Girl
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
28
Aella
@Aella_Girl
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.
23
Likes
Aella
@Aella_Girl
Replying to
@Bearbastard
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.
1
Show replies
EricArrrrr
@OakPaul
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
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
1
1
Russ Shanahan
@russshanahan
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
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.
2
TPRJones
@TPRJones
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
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.