Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There are many ways to take on an idea you don’t like, but two tend to be most used.
1. Attack idea on its merits.
2. Attack and silence the source.
Both are fine tactics. But 2 is a thug’s move, and it avoid possibly useful discourse. 1 should be encouraged over 2. 2 should be considered low behavior.
|
Suppose you walk into a room where you've heard there's going to be a debate, and you find Bill Maher with a really big megaphone, and a bunch of other people listening to him. Sometimes he just talks about what he wants to, and sometimes he asks other people questions and lets them answer a little, but he doesn't let go of the microphone so it's hard for anyone else to really be heard. He's wearing a nice suit, and it turns out that he's making some coin by telling people to go to particular restaurants in the area. After a bit of this, he starts going on with some vaccine nonsense.
If you say, hey, maybe someone else should get the megaphone for a while, are you silencing him? When he has the same chance to speak as anyone else without the megaphone? Are you depriving him of his livelihood because he won't get to make the plugs?
Not saying that the heckler's veto is the best path to a vibrant marketplace of ideas, but that really doesn't seem to be something you're worrying about either.
Threaded Mode