andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2021-03-20 12:00 pm

Outrage

[personal profile] anna_wing 2021-03-20 12:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, yes.

If both sides agree that only speech they agree with should be allowed, but disagree about the exact content of said speech, then who wins is determined solely by the side with the greater power to enforce its position. It stops being a contest of principle between liberal and illiberal, and becomes a contest of power between two illiberalities (in which people will usually pick the side whose positions benefit them more).

"No platform" makes sauce for the goose as well as sauce for the gander, which is why it is a dangerous tactic to rely on unless you are really sure that the preponderance of power (and, in a democratic society, public opinion) is with you.
calimac: (Default)

[personal profile] calimac 2021-03-20 01:45 pm (UTC)(link)
1) Universal social media resulting in universal embarrassing posts in everyone's background: Remember when the theory was that this would cause universal forgiveness? Instead it's caused universal condemnation.

2) My understanding is that the original plan for Frozen was for Elsa to be the villain, but when the songwriters brought in "Let It Go," the screenwriters realized that the character with such a subtly sympathetic (and potential killer hit) song couldn't be the villain, so they retrofitted the role onto Hans, on whom it didn't quite fit. Thus wacko theories like the one in this post.

Also: while Hans's plan to become king by marrying one sister and then killing both of them wouldn't work in a real-life monarchy, one must presume the succession laws in fairy-tale realms are different. (And there are real-world precedents. The Byzantine Empire had something vaguely like consort rule, but it's not called Byzantine for nothing.) Consider the rules by which Lord Farquaad in Shrek intends to become king. Those make no sense whatever, but you have to swallow it for the sake of the plot.
Edited 2021-03-20 13:46 (UTC)
cellio: (Default)

right and left

[personal profile] cellio 2021-03-22 01:16 am (UTC)(link)

Yup.

No-one really seems interested in changing minds. They are interested in punishing blasphemers. It is a road that leads to the death of intellectual inquiry, or self-improvement, or independent journalism, or even humour. It’s a grim, stony-faced, ugly, punishing world.

It's even worse than that. Not only are they out to punish blasphemers (= anybody who isn't 100% with me; nuanced perspectives are as evil as the other side), but they will seek out and create blasphemy to then attack, for the sake of showing how virtuous they are or something. It's pretty appalling what our society has come to, where people are so averse to having a thoughtful, civilized conversation that takes into account little things like age and context.