I got curious and looked in to who this guy was. And, well, Owen got banned from most socials after he called Obama the n-word, so OF COURSE Elon had to bring him back so he further share his thought with the world.
I never understood banning people for speech you don’t like. Wouldn’t the logical and entertaining method be to put them on full display, letting themselves be mocked and ridiculed? My take is let the asshats spew their views so we all know who not to associate with.
Nha, give them as little exposure as they can get, that way they don’t corrupt the minds of gullible males who are a 4 but think they deserve a 10 because they can provide.
As other people with these views hear that kind of rhetoric more and more, they come to find it acceptable. Thus pushing even more people to find it acceptable.
This kind of rhetoric should definitely be legal, but it should not be given a platform.
I never understood banning people for speech you don’t like.
spam is extremely powerful, and is what I would qualify most internet “speech” as being, realistically. seeing 200 different 500 character (at max) comments, that are all variations of the same exact statement isn’t really like, speech, in the conventional sense.
That may work for normal people. Not so much for those unhinged enough to actually hate someone who has different characteristics than them. Unfortunately Twitter is filled with the unhinged.
I got curious and looked in to who this guy was. And, well, Owen got banned from most socials after he called Obama the n-word, so OF COURSE Elon had to bring him back so he further share his thought with the world.
I never understood banning people for speech you don’t like. Wouldn’t the logical and entertaining method be to put them on full display, letting themselves be mocked and ridiculed? My take is let the asshats spew their views so we all know who not to associate with.
Nha, give them as little exposure as they can get, that way they don’t corrupt the minds of gullible males who are a 4 but think they deserve a 10 because they can provide.
Most of them can only provide a room in their mom’s basement.
The problem is the network effect.
As other people with these views hear that kind of rhetoric more and more, they come to find it acceptable. Thus pushing even more people to find it acceptable.
This kind of rhetoric should definitely be legal, but it should not be given a platform.
Wouldn’t others with those views already find them acceptable?
This might help.
Good read. History has shown this to be very true.
It’s only a paradox if you start with the ridiculous presupposition that tolerance is a universal good.
The paradox of tolerance
spam is extremely powerful, and is what I would qualify most internet “speech” as being, realistically. seeing 200 different 500 character (at max) comments, that are all variations of the same exact statement isn’t really like, speech, in the conventional sense.
That may work for normal people. Not so much for those unhinged enough to actually hate someone who has different characteristics than them. Unfortunately Twitter is filled with the unhinged.