| > The first requires no engagement, the second requires engagement (1) people are innocent until proven guilty (2) if one group is judge, jury, and executioner that's a problem (3) authoritarians seek to quell dissent by censoring (4) removal/ejection/ostracism from group is censorship (5) contrary to your assertion removal/ejection/ostracism is a form of engagement (6) in fact within the realm of free speech r/e/o is the most extreme form of engagement (7) this is because it is the quashing of that ejected person's ability to freely express themselves > The first has guaranteed results, the second is uncertain. (8) hard disagree, the first is guaranteed to generate all sorts of backlash (perhaps not the results wished for) (9) the second is guaranteed to generate debate, exactly what authoritarians and the censorious dislike (10) ps: (quibble) the “Nazis” were terminated with extreme prejudice in 1945, any variants thereof nowadays are neo-Nazis === All the above is transparently obvious to me. It concerns me that in a so-called liberal society many clearly are either unwilling or are unable to see that everything I have outline is true in all cases. The fruits of this ignorance are all around us. |