The left seem to have a belief that only certain people should get a chance to have a voice. They will often evoke hate campaigns to get people removed from Twitter, Facebook and so on.
On today’s BBC 2’s politics live [25th February 2020] talked about a new group called ‘Free Speech Union’.
Labour peer Helena Kennedy stated that racists may join, and that in today’s world we need to be decent to each other.
The first thing to note is that, no, we do not ‘need’ to be decent to each other. Personally I prefer people to be decent to each other on such as Twitter, but I would also defend your right to be unpleasant. And lets ace it, those on the left are extremely unpleasant on Twitter.
The next is the bit about allowing racists to have a voice.
The first thing is, who decides who is racist. It is the fundamental problem with censoring speech, is the fact you have to have people decide what is good and bad. Take for instance the nonsense where at least twice people have gone to court for posting a joke, and a judge or magistrate has had to state if it is a joke or not in his or her mind. It is subjective.
For those who feel they can decide that someone is a racist, they must be on the level of a god, in order to have the ability to see into someones mind, in order to know if they are racist or not. And clearly many on the left deem themselves to be on the level of god, if not above him or her. Note, I am not religious and have no belief in God.
But then you say, what if someone posts that black people or inferior to white people, or or gay people are sinners or whatever, surly we should ban them.
Why do people feel so scared of someone posting unpleasant views? Perhaps those on the left must think very little of people to think that on hearing such views they too will adopt these views. Indeed, one suspects that they will influence no one.
But would it not be better to listen (and I do mean listen) to what they say, and discuss what they state with real evidence (and I do not mean go on a shouting war with them). At least then you have an opportunity to change there minds. They may even provide you with something to think about.
By preventing them from speaking, or as the modern term seems to be ‘Deplatforming’, or ‘no-platforming’, one does not stop people from having such views, but rather pushes people who hold such views into a dark area where only they talk to others with the same views, and these can fester into something terrible.
To finish, it is also worth noting that often I find on Twitter and such, that many on the left, simply are not intelligent enough to debate or put forward facts. They often resort to blocking people, often after swearing or/and calling them names. One often thinks that they should not engage in online debates unless they are equipped to do so. Simply blocking those that do not hold the same views, or indeed deem it clever to state that certain newspapers or TV shows should be banned, does nothing except suggest they are of limited intelligence.
Universities that ban people in case they upset some student, should be ashamed of themselves. Of course the problem is, many of these students who go to university, are often of low intelligence, who end up going to low ranking universities, often to do worthless degrees set up for thick people. It seems very rare that students who attend the best universities and sign up to degrees that require intelligence, get upset and demand ‘safe spaces’. It seems to always be students from the ‘not so great’ universities, who do the moron degrees, who prance around demanding safe spaces.