Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Wanted: recommended idealogues who — actively reject "cancel culture" — can disagree, even angrily, without making attempts to deplatform — sometimes say objectively weird stuff — make predictions that seem to bear out Left- or right- aligned, secular or religious, etc.

I don't wanna detract from the thrust of your point but do you mind if I ask you why deplatforming - not anger - is the bigger sin, here?

My guess would be: because anger is just an emotion, as natural as any other. Unless it turns into hostile action, it does no harm. I don't entirely agree, but anger by and of itself does seem like a thing that hurts less than deplatforming.

I don't necessarily think anger is a good thing, and perhaps I'm more permissive of it than I ought to be because I'm prone to it myself (regrettably). But... deplatforming attempts to control what others are allowed to hear, and that's something I'm extremely concerned about.

I take it you don't consider stochastic terrorism an actual thing then?

I do, I just don't think the concern there justifies authoritarian top-down control over information, or that the potential harms of the former outweigh the potential harms of the latter

The existance of fox news (or NBC or the BBC or whatever) is already a form of top-down control over information. How is for example getting someone fired from there worse than someone never having a voice there to begin with? Also: there is a place in between the extremes.

And to be completely honest, I do not believe that access to "information" about George Soros supposedly controlling the world and being the root of all evil for example is more valuable than the right not to be bombed just because you're working for him.