Just like people got what they wished for when Voat was spawned from Reddit?
Every site draws a line somewhere.
You start by courting people with an actual real, personal, counterculture message that doesn't get played in the mainstream media, and start with THAT community.
The Dave Rubin's of the world don't care about free speech. You can tell because they don't care about women's voices that are suppressed in workplaces. They don't care about Muslim or even atheist voices that are suppressed in political campaigns. They only care about white male voices and the occasional woman or person of color who happens to also care about guns or the scourge of feminism or some other primarily white male topic.
If you really want to create a bastion for free speech you would need to care about women's voices and black lesbian voices and disabled voices and fat voices and all of that.
But the Dave Rubin's of the world don't believe those voices are suppressed. You can tell because he doesn't invite anyone like that on his show. And as long as they keep thinking that white men are somehow uniquely suppressed due to "political correct culture" and that women and fat people and trans people ar just universally adulated and celebrated and welcome to speak at every occasion... As long as they keep believing that, the Voats of the world will continue to be cesspools.
I fear the reason they can't do that is they'd realize that the Dave Rubin's and Ben Shapiro's of the world are already well enfranchised and their speech is suppressed far far less than literally every other demographic.
And to be totally clear: I am talking about, for example white women at tech companies in San Francisco who are fired for honestly taking about their work, because the men around them interpret any assertiveness from them as an attack. Just to set the terms of the debate: women literally fired for taking about the work they were hired to do in a way any man could talk and receive only praise.
As an example.
I don't know how to square these two thoughts.
Granted, it's aspirational.
I have no idea who you are, so just a question about where you’re at in thinking about this.
And do I understand correctly your proposal? That we should all aspire to be unaffected by the words of others. And if someone is negatively affected by words it is their failure, not the failure of the speaker or the failure of the group they are in together.
The idea that the language was constructed is pretty silly. It's such a twisted hodge-podge of borrowed ideas. Besides, other languages with far different heritages will hold very similar words and terms as ours. As for the idea of having more ammunition, You'd have to actually provide some evidence for the idea that there's more plentiful / harsh language available to 'people like me'. Particularly when I've seen both of the words you cite used plentifully towards a broad swathe of people.
|That we should all aspire to be unaffected by the words of others.
Yes.
|And if someone is negatively affected by words it is their failure, not the failure of the speaker or the failure of the group they are in together.
Not exactly, no. A person being an asshole is an asshole. Your reaction to it doesn't absolve them of that behavior, even if you responded positively for some reason. However, letting some random asshole ruin your day by saying something you don't like is just setting you up for constant failure, as you are so easily driven into a negative emotional state. I'm suggesting a coping strategy, one among many, to guide a person in navigating a world full of adversity.
There's nothing wrong with boxing matches. There's also nothing wrong with people wanting to walk city streets without having to fight.
The solution is to provide places for boxing, and places where boxing people is forbidden.