Maintaining the moral high ground is crucial when attempting to fight extremists with reason and discourse.

MLK understood this tactic and brilliantly deployed it with his non-violent movement, and he defeated extremists with reason and discourse.

You can call me naïve, but wouldn’t have been a shame if MLK gave up when he was called naïve?

When they go low, we go high.

-Michelle Obama

I admit you raise some good points. I have always thought that people susceptible to extremism will eventually find it online, but maybe they won’t, and maybe exposing them to those ideas in rational conversation on mainstream platforms is too “risky.” My gut tells me that is not the case, but that is just my gut. It seems worthy of some kind of study.

Cheers. Not everyone has the constitution to engage, and that’s fine. I do not think hate should be tolerated, but I think it must be confronted with reason. The only alternatives seem to be more isolation, extremism, and violence.

Cheers. Not everyone has the constitution to engage, and that’s fine. I do not think hate should be tolerated, but I think it must be confronted with reason. The only alternatives seem to be more isolation, extremism, and violence.

You ever hear of that black guy who makes friends with KKK members? Sometimes they give up their bullshit and they become friends. I will accept the risk of having futile arguments with many if there is a chance that logic and reason breaks through to a few.

I have argued with them a lot in person and online. Yeah, most of the time it is futile. Every now and then it’s not. You ever hear of that black guy who makes friends with KKK members? Sometimes they give up their bullshit and they become friends. I will accept the risk of having futile arguments with many if there is a chance that logic and reason breaks through to a few.

So the solution is to just kick people we disagree with off all the mainstream platforms and ensure they go to their own echo chambers where they are isolated from any reasonable counters to their ideology, which will just ultimately make the problem worse? Brilliant.

It’s like the war on drugs. If we just ban it then surely the problem will disappear…except it just gets worse.

How can people be this shortsighted?

So the solution is to just kick them off all the mainstream platforms and ensure they go to their own echo chambers where they are isolated from any reasonable counters to their ideology, which will just ultimately make the problem worse? Brilliant.

It’s like the war on drugs. If we just ban it then surely the problem will disappear…except it just gets worse.

How can people be this shortsighted?

What’s the limit on packs of gum? Asking for a friend.

Fire is not fire. Therefore fire is not hot.

The distinction is between a thing in relation to other things and for us and a thing in itself. To the extent that water cannot wet, it is not water. To the extent that fire cannot burn, it is not fire. Yet precisely for not burning itself, fire is fire; and for not wetting itself, water is water. X is not X, therefore it is X. For precisely in its act of burning firewood, fire does not burn itself; and in not burning itself, it burns firewood. It burns in relation to something else, but in-itself (in relation to itself) it does not burn.