It doesn't, or at least hard-leftists like @YonatanZunger don't make that distinction. To them, entertaining any idea they object to morally is equivalent to conspiring with the enemy.
One could equally argue that to not allow such ideas to be debated is to play into the Nazi/alt-right narrative of an elite preventing the people from awaking via censorship. Better to have the arguments heard so they can be roundly defeated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
-
-
I have a whole essay on this subject that I keep working on. :) The TL;DR is that this statement is true for some kinds of statement, but not others. Most of all for debates about who is human: debates there tend to legitimize the question as being valid in people's minds.
-
Any argument that isn't true can ultimately be invalidated, but only through debate. To censor it is to concede that it is too convincing to defeat in debate.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.