I'm going to explain my claim “Public posts are implicit endorsement of the framework they discuss.”
If you make a post saying “I think we shouldn't kick puppies,” that implies several things: – someone is saying we should – a discussion of whether we should is valid – so there are at least two valid opinions, one of which is “kick puppies” – thus, kicking puppies IS a valid thing to do, you just don't agree.
So by saying “don't kick puppies,” you've said “kicking puppies is worth considering.” I see a recognition of this concept when it comes to some speech; everyone knows that discussing whether you should genocide legitimizing the genocide.
But then people forget that the logic tracks for smaller topics too - which usually aren't “smaller topics” at all, but vanguards for the big violent topic you know you shouldn't let happen... which is why the smaller topics are brought up, at all.
People are still willing to have a friendly conversation about whether this or that group deserves food stamps, like that doesn't legitimize the framework of “food is for those who deserve it”
Y'know what I try and do in those situations? Openly laugh at the prompt and go “I'm not going to respond to that.” Here's why:
People who put forth little views like that, they're building an identity. If you let them, then that must be an acceptable identity - even if you personally disagree with it If you don't let them say shit like that, though, you don't let them build up a real sense of identity.
I'm sure a lot of you can relate to not having a sense of identity. It makes you sweaty and anxious at 3am, makes you wonder why people won't let you be the way you are. It makes you deliberate, in the cold vacuum of your mind, not in a social conversation that can be won.
I've never won over a fascist in debate, and in my life, I've had to debate a few. But I have seen entire communities distance themselves from the ideology because it left them unable to have a casual conversation with their weekend buddies anymore.
But I have seen entire communities distance themselves from the ideology because it left them unable to have a casual conversation with their weekend buddies anymore.
If you're American, you probably read the Scarlet Letter. It was about how powerful ostracizing can be. That was centralized ostracizing, and that's the crux of what's bad.
But using your agency to tell people, “don't spew that crap around me?” That's not oppressive, censorship, or anything but you saying what you want.
You'd be amazed how effective “I heard you said X, I'll be ignoring you until you apologize,” is. I've had it be effective and I'm just one person. I can't imagine if everyone shared their opinions of their associates that way.
It might be more unfriendly, but how dishonest it is that we refrain from criticizing associates so we might maintain a friendly face; how disrespectful to... everyone; those who would be hurt by the speech, and those we let do harm because we'd rather be “friendly.”