I strongly suggest engaging with what people actually say and not any 'code' you think underlies it. "So, what you're saying is that you want to censor people?' No. We want to critique their ideas.https://twitter.com/C_C_Gill/status/1000085745460305920 …
-
-
I just think it's better not to assume that what someone says actually means something else. Whether than person is Peterson or someone who disagrees with him. That is the problem now. People mindreading others through tribal loyalties.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
not directly at you, no. As you guessed, I was commenting on these types of tribal shouting matches. If it was only twitter it wouldn't be so bad, but this seems to be the new way to argue.
-
Well, I don't consider suggesting we *don't* read other people's words as codes for something much worse & instead engage with what they're actually saying as either a tribal shouting match or a misrepresentation of the words '"wary" has become code for "let's censor..."'
-
but where would we stop? Radical has become code for extremist. Insurgent is now code for terrorist. In the new UK Internet censorship act, esoteric is already code for obscene. We'll lose all our medial words if this goes on
-
I don't know how 'Where would we stop?' applies. I'm suggesting not doing this as much as possible and arguing with what people actually say rather than the least charitable interpretation of it. It boggles my mind to have to suggest this to Peterson supporters.
-
perhaps I should declare, I don't know anyone in this thread. I just follow searches I find interesting?
End of conversation
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.