Sounds interesting. I'd like to read 
Yes, when people aren't satisfied with saying 'I support your right to do this thing' but feel they must support the thing itself.
-
-
This is the 'right to choice' and 'rightness of choice' conflation I am talking about.
-
Not just 'I support your right to wear a burqa' but supporting gender-specific modesty codes in 1 culture that you'd normally condemn.
-
"incendiary" speech. Its motivations are simply too questionable. Like climate-denial
. -
I don't because then what is appalling is always decided by the majority. Wrote this after the Milo thing but applicable more widely.pic.twitter.com/oAOl8GIWKA
-
Milo isn't hateful though. He's using ridicule and parody as a weapon against modern day "feminism". Atheists do the same against faith
-
In fact I would say Milos largest audience are feminists who flock to disrupt him, making him more popular, and play the victim over words.
-
The point is not what you think of Milo but whether we should ban ideas we think are hateful. Not agreeing on which are strengthens a 'no.'
-
We shouldn't ban ideas. Ideas don't hurt people, people do that. Because at the core hateful "ideas" are the result of hateful people
- 3 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.