- It's the best method for approaching truth (for several reasons, one being challenge)
- It allows disputes to be settled ("fought" might be a better term:) without recourse to violence.
If Nazis are willing to fight their corner without using violence then I'm happy because their arguments are easily beaten (hence, why they needed to use violence to gain power in the past).
The problem that social media companies have wrought is not giving people too much free speech, it's siloing opposing views away from each other because it makes some people uncomfortable. Without challenge, speech becomes dangerous, it is not free it is restricted. It's essentially a form of blasphemy law, its effects are just the same, but now we can have several different streams of negative thought growing unchallenged alongside each other because social media has been chopped up into silos.
Insane people can't get into power as long as they can be challenged, that requires free speech. As long as these silos exist there is not free speech and we are in greater danger of insane or authoritarian government.
I also think it is just observably false that insane people cannot get into power if there is sufficient speech to resist them.
Er, Nazis keep fighting with violence recently, so I’m not convinced that this is accurate at all.
> Nazis are only willing to fight without violence (generally) now because they currently aren’t able to use violence without retaliation.
So what? That doesn't affect my argument in the slightest (as I've already pointed out[1]). I won't be taking up your offer of taking the strongest interpretation of my argument, thanks, because you're either creating a straw man (how ironic) or you've misunderstood the argument presented.
Further, I would suggest that if someone were really steel manning an argument they wouldn't be telling others about it, they'd have continued to respond to the challenges put to them. I don't see such a continuance. What could you be waiting for?
Where? And if so, what relevance does that have to those that refrain from violence? If the United States government sanctions an attack by its forces does that make all United States citizens liable for retaliation? If some Muslims commit an act of terror does this mean that all Muslims must be held accountable for those acts?
Or do we, quite rightly, separate out those who commit violent acts from those who don't?
> I also think it is just observably false that insane people cannot get into power if there is sufficient speech to resist them.
You might provide an example.
Humans are terrible arbiters of truth. The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and now it's been confirmed. Was that "good" censorship?
No man is fit to play the censor, regardless political party. Even Biden was anti-gay until the Obama administration and that was well past when many of us were arguing for LGBT acceptance and equality.
Uh... what powers? There's no government action at work here. We're talking about the refusal of a bunch of Mastodon services to federate with Gab. I wouldn't expect that to change at all under a different administration, precisely because the first amendment severely constrains the government's ability to regulate speech. Trump can't make Mastodon clients carry Gab any more than Biden can force them to ban it, and for exactly the same reason.
> The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and now it's been confirmed.
This one I thought was hilarious. That story was covered full time for like six weeks on the most watched news network in the country! "Censored", pfft.
This is the entire point of my argument. “But we didn’t censor you when we were in power” is not a real argument because people will just say “tough shit” and throw you in prison.
If sane people are in power, we can simply protect gay rights.
If fascists are in power, they won't hesitate to take rights away from people they don't like.