Sure, she's no Terry Pratchett or George R. R. Martin, but I like the universe she created. I also quite like the Prisoner of Azkaban movie

Now you're turning my argument absolutist, which is not the point and also why I finished my post by pointing out we should still loudly disagree if we want. I wanted to squash that strawman before it got made, but here you are constructing it anyways.

You're sticking to your MO, I guess. Good job.

Are you a horse? Cause you sound like a nag.

I don't judge people who like Harry Potter cause JK Rowling is transphobic I judge them because I've ****ing met people who like Harry Potter and they are obnoxious about it

The soundest opinion in this discussion

What? No you're giving credence to the idea that she's being cancelled.

You're not engaging with my point. Should we or should we not allow white nationalists and far right wing demagogues on public platforms? Cause if not then your whole point becomes "We should carefully choose who we cancel" which runs counter to what you've been saying this whole time.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

I would like some wine

We obviously have laws against hate speech and various forms of harmful expression. On private platforms, it is roughly up to the owners to make policies. Besides that, I think lawmakers should decide what goes and what doesn't.

As a general rule, I do think that right wing demagogues should be allowed on public platforms along with other scum as long as they stay within the limits of legal expression. On public platforms, they can be seen so we know who they are. Their opinions can be discussed by the public. They can be challenged. Keep them in the light so everyone knows what they're up to. Tying it in with what I wrote earlier, keep those ideas in an environment that is hostile towards them. They're less likely to blossom.

If you de-platform them, they may just find new platforms (like parler) where their messages go unchallenged. They might actually increase their influence that way and their messages might reach more receptive minds. I think this process is ongoing in various places, adding strength to various right wing movements.

That's how we got Trump dawg

Except kicking Alex Jones off Youtube has tanked his viewership and his relevance, and now that Richard Spencer isn't on CNN or any other major public platform nobody talks about him and he's fallen by the wayside. And after that guy punched him in the head on camera he doesn't really do public appearances anymore. Deplatforming these people CAN reduce their relevance, whereas publicly platforming them gives them exposure to an audience who they are not arguing in good faith with. They're just propagandists who are trying emotionally manipulate in a way that circumvents logic and reason. Allowing them that opportunity is simply irresponsible and undercuts the marketplace of ideas.

I don't know Richard Spencer and I'm no expert on Alex Jones either, so disclaimer that I'm aware of that and so a little careful with my claims.

But couldn't you very nearly make a case for the opposite, at least regarding Alex Jones? His influence rose through medias catering to the right, most of all his own media outlet InfoWars.

After Trump got elected, he got a lot of attention on him, even appearing in the news here in Norway. He didn't hold up well under intense public scrutiny, buckled under the pressure and became a worldwide laughing stock, on youtube and elsewhere.

When he got de-platformed from youtube, wasn't he already well into his downward trajectory? If it hurt his relevancy, was it his relevancy as a joke?

I assume these days he's retreated back into the far right medias where he can perhaps recuperate.

Making millions off of newfound reactionary support sounds stressful. I'd probably buckle too.