Re: Remnick v Bannon: In the Slate comments in 2016 we had to consider the question of whether our rules against racism and sexism should change because racism and sexism were entering the political mainstream. 1/
Show this thread
-
It was a similar question as the NYer is facing albeit on a far smaller stage. Does the fact of the mainstreaming of abhorrent beliefs mean that we owe deference to these beliefs? Should our standards on hate speech be adaptive, or absolute? 2/
Show this thread
Our decision was: No. Our standard of removing hate speech in the comments and banning those who repeatedly engaged in it would remain absolute. 3/
-
-
When you adjust your standards to be more hospitable to racists and sexists you make the conversation less hospitable to people of color and women. That wasn't a price worth paying just as the mainstream political climate became more hostile to such voices. 4/
Show this thread -
When you invite proponents of hateful (but increasingly mainstream) ideologies to a debate on equal terms it makes that space, and by extension the public sphere, more hostile to those who these hateful people hope to silence. In other words, it does their work for them. (end)
Show this thread
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.