A bit meta, but I call this cognitive de-platforming. Not engaging with a thesis because the person in question is an outcast.
Recognize the pattern of their motivations and the resulting ideas? Know they’re harmful from prior experience? Better go think on it some more, or you’ve unduly cancelled them from your own brain, and that’s bad because everyone who wants to be in your brain deserves to be, rent free of course.
That's a wildly exaggerated interpretation of rainytuesday's post. I interpreted it as calling out the one-sided purity test applied to which media one may engage with.
I.e. you can ignore it and not think about it, but you can't expect others to concede that, just because the source doesn't parrot your side's orthodoxy, it can and should be ignored. Especially for something as mild as the statement about supporting news without a liberal filter.
Especially since, if motivated, biased, harmful (but truthful) reporting is enough to discredit a news source, then that would disqualify ABC, CBS, NBC, the Associated Press [1], the New York Times, and I'm sure many others.
If we ignore what anyone we dislike has to say, even when we think what they're saying is true, then dialogue is impossible.
[1] https://israelpalestinenews.org/associated-press-double-stan...
You didn’t need to interpret. They said[0] what they meant pretty clearly.
> Non-engagement with the thesis was the point
And I don’t agree given actual political alignment that “news without a liberal filter” is mild. It’s a dog whistle for increasingly active hate. The news without such a “liberal filter” is openly hostile to my existence, and far moreso towards other people I care about. And to that point,
> If we ignore what anyone we dislike has to say, even when we think what they're saying is true, then dialogue is impossible.
I don’t want dialogue with anyone who wants me to cease to exist, nor anyone who wants to keep people I care about from existing. That’s not intellectual curiosity and it’s not the bedrock of a functioning society. It’s the exact principle of demanding people entertain harmful ideas even when recognized.
You can engage whatever you want, but I’m not obligated to spend a second thought on people who want me dead.
I’m not asking for anything to be ignored. I’m asserting my right not to subject myself to it personally.
> They believe hate speech is violence. Not that it merely is bad, but that it actually equates to violence. In fact, certain forms of hate speech are not just violence, but genocide.
And then I get down the thread a bit and find the exact behavior described in uvnq’s post.
If the simple tagline “news without a liberal filter” can be interpreted as an indirect deadly threat against an individual’s life and very existence, then the moral framework has already been established to violently respond in “self-defense”.
My point is that the thread is poor content written by a clearly unreliable source. I'm happy to engage with ideas I disagree with when they're presented intelligently with insight, but as soon as someone starts talking about world governments taking their orders from some hidden superior powers I'm out thank you very much.