Everybody basically agrees really abhorrent ideas don't belong in public life. The practical divide is whether you choose to assert that ideas cannot be sufficiently abhorrent if they happen to be very widespread
Näytä tämä ketju
-
It probably doesn't need to be added that the very worst people have always understood this aspect of liberal culture and worked to depict their ideas as *just* mainstream enough that they MUST be afforded a seat at the table
Näytä tämä ketju
By 'public life' do we mean public discussion, or more narrowly 'in the mouths of people holding public office or trust'?
-
-
I think most people who are being honest with themselves mean both! Plenty agree there should be no legal constraint but also that, say, Nick Fuentes shouldn't be treated as a legitimate interlocutor or associated with by people who have any desire to be viewed as tolerant.
-
If you agree to that it's simply a question of where to draw the line; many people just choose to draw it on the basis of whether ideas are "mainstream," and I'm observing that this principle has substantial built-in vulnerabilities.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.