| I'm having trouble understanding the point of the article. I can't connect how the XKCD comic has acted for or against the points the author is trying to make. This comic is reactionary to an existing situation, it hasn't created the situation. Same as the comic that adamnemecek calls out. quoting the last line of the article:
> It is my friend Daniel's observation that tolerance is the experience of suffering through unpleasant ideas. We endure that suffering because the world is dramatically better on balance when we do. There are limits to this. Unpleasant ideas continually raised by very few people adds nothing. If an idea or point needs to be continually brought up by a small group of individuals then it probably doesn't have much value. Hell, even QAnon has 'caught on', so the bar is low enough that I'd argue there's not much of a problem with the stuff that's getting filtered out. 'Proud Boys' exist, QED. If you don't like that you're censored on someone else's platform, then build your own. If you're getting jeered while proselytising on your soapbox in public place X, keep moving until you find a more receptive audience. Having said that, even non-public platform (FB, twitter, etc.) censorship is a situation that requires on-going re-evaluation. Unless I'm missing the point of the article. |