The trouble is, not everyone is saying that. A few people here and there are, but what about some mode nuance things? For example, what if someone says they're fine with trans-people and think everyone should live their lives whoever they want, but trans M2F shouldn't participate in professional sports because it's not fair.

That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist."

There is a lot to unpack there, and people can have reasonable debates about both sides of that statement. Adam Conover and Joe Rogan have had such a conversation (it's a really good episode of the Rogan podcast), but many people refuse to even listen to it because they consider Rogan a bigot/alt-right-adjacent/etc.

You have to be careful because there is so much room in the details and someone not accepting 100% of x world view doesn't immediately make them a terrible human being.

In the past, controversial views converge over time. Heidegger talked about extreme ideas as a thesis, those trying to keep things as they are as antithesis, and eventually society moves together with some kind of synthesis. All that feels like it's been thrown out the window for extreme left or extreme right ideology.

> That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist."

Great point. A huge part of the problem is language. Subtlety and nuance gets stripped away (especially online), so that everything you disagree with is an unconscionable violation. It's the language of clickbait.

I'm sure the idea is to break through the noise and mobilize people against perceived injustice, but all it does is make the noise that much louder.

"You have to be careful because there is so much room in the details and someone not accepting 100% of x world view doesn't immediately make them a terrible human being."

Like what? What could be the "not a terrible human being" part be about someone who wants the state to disacknowledge someone's humanity?

Who do we trust to be the arbiters of extreme positions? I would consider the dismissal of using biological science to define male and female as an extreme position, and yet I could be banned from Twitter by saying as much.

> How is "I don't consider you human" not an extreme position?

Most bigots do not believe that.

Not all bigotry is "I don't consider you human".

While that's true, I think it's worth pointing out that it is a mirror of your own statement that "the average left-leaning person today doesn't see bigots even as people any more." Neither statement is true. They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts.

That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right.

> They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts.

Is it, though? What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it?

> That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right.

I mean, sure, but I was meaning to make you think about your own tendency to fall into the same trap.

Also, the left can scarcely avoid being a mirror of the right in many ways, given that both groups are made out of humans. The influence of ideology on social dynamics is overstated.

> What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it?

But see, you're putting words in people's mouths here. This saying is far from the average left-leaning position.

Even if we were to look at the subsection of the left that wishes to de-platform certain individuals, they generally wouldn't say something as crude and caricatural as "I don't think you deserve to be heard." This is, perhaps, what you think that they think, but this is uncharitable and dismissive.

Maybe not in those words, but would you agree that that is what you're saying when you demand someone be deplatformed?

Generally, I wouldn't. People may want to deplatform other individuals for a variety of reasons.

A common one is to impede the spread of ideas that they consider dangerous, because they believe that these ideas will cause human suffering down the line. Whether these ideas truly are dangerous, whether their obstruction is effective, or whether it may backfire, that's another debate. The point is that they genuinely believe these ideas to be mind-viruses of sorts, and they genuinely believe that deplatforming is an effective way to impede them. If they are correct on these counts, then their actions are justified.

There are other possible rationales. One would be concern about bandwidth: platforms have limited bandwidth and can only spread a limited number of ideas, and people also have limited bandwidth and can only be aware of a limited number of ideas. The spread of bad ideas may therefore harm us by "clogging" the system (the resurgence of flat Earthism may be the most egregious example of wasted bandwidth).

I don't mean to debate the merits of these reasons. I just mean to point out that the "deplatformers" do have well thought out rationales. And if they are wrong, which is certainly possible, they are not obviously wrong.