I'm really confused by arguments that try to tell people that they are morally obligated to tolerate people saying bigoted stuff. They always act like we as individuals have control over some kind of "invisible hand" of the zeitgeist.
-
-
But in fact what they're saying is that if someone tells my friend they are evil, I am supposed to be cool with it in order to "make space" for "innovative ideas"
Show this thread -
Maybe when we tolerate the idea that certain people are inferior, we are failing to "make space" for all of the innovative ideas that those people can bring to the table?
Show this thread -
Maybe we should consider that environments that tolerate inequality and casual consideration of the idea that inequality is "natural", we are pushing out a huge number of people who bring new ideas to the table?
Show this thread -
Maybe we already have enough ideas from the kind of people who need to be able to say those kinds of things in order to thrive, and not enough ideas from people being demoralized and pushed away by all of the casual bigotry?
Show this thread -
Maybe it's ok to let people loudly and clearly push back against ideas like Damore's Google memo? Maybe trying to silence broad based disagreement with Damore's bigotry is suppressing important ideas?
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.