Originally Posted by Brutal
The issue with denying a platform, in this example to fascists or white supremacist, goes back to the slippery slope argument. I know you disagree with this but I really hope you will try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Ultimately, who makes the decision about whose platform should be denied? The only reasonable answer is: society consensus. To this I would ask, if enough of society can agree that a thing is bad enough we should deny it a platform, why should be be worried about it having a platform in the first place? It's obvious that enough people agree that it is bad, and those reasonable people will have no trouble both rejecting the offensive position and educating their peers/children to do the same. I would argue that allowing deplorables to air their view gives us reasonable folk ammunition to use in ensuring their way of thinking is roundly rejected.



In a vacuum chamber you'd be right, but in our society an individual's speech is given weight based on the amount of wealth or celebrity they have access to, not the level of rationality behind their opinions.


[Linked Image]