[p49k]

What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective? It seems to be like it’s nearly impossible to convince someone that their worldview is wrong; however people do feel the need and desire to be part of communities and knowing they might be excluded for having hateful views might be more of a motivator for them to rethink those views on their own terms, which is possibly a more effective method of changing someone’s views.

[kuzehanka]

> What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective?

We have a lot of evidence that marginalising sufficiently large groups leads to tremendous backlash when they reach critical mass, e.g. almost every revolution in history. I think we can agree that doing exactly that which failed every time before is not a productive avenue.

> having hateful views

Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views. The term toxic refers to any unpopular view. In addition to hate speech, this includes various sexual preferences, political views, anti-science movements, mens rights groups, etc.

[DFHippie]

> Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views.

Is this a terminological distinction you just made up? In the usage I'm familiar neither "hateful" nor "toxic" is a term of art.

[kuzehanka]

As per TFA, reddit banned a list of 'toxic' demographics. A quick scan over those demographics makes it quite apparent that about half of them are not related to hate speech but rather some of the other categories I listed above.

Not sure how the distinction between 'hateful' and 'toxic' could possibly be contentious.