The magazine’s editor, David Remnick, first told the New York Times he would interview the former Trump aide and chief White House strategist in front of a live audience, with “every intention of asking him difficult questions and engaging in a serious and even combative conversation”.
This is one of the reasons that liberal outrage sometimes annoys me, because assuming this is correct, and I believe it is, it's important to interview opposing sides and ask them difficult questions to expose them for who they are. Essentially de-platforming him is just not a great idea.
No matter how stupid or evil you make someone look, all it will do is garner them more followers and spread their ideas. The president proves that.
I suppose it's an issue I'm really torn on. I don't really know what the right answer is, but I just like people to respect the spirit of the 1st Amendment, even though this obviously doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because it's not government censoring.
Silencing them feeds into their victim complex and removing them from this event won't deplatform them, they have many other avenues.
https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA
The alt-right is a cult. Disproving them doesn't reduce their influence because cultists don't care about facts. Giving them any platform at all can only benefit them.
Nothing you do won't feed their victim complex. Give them a platform, they get hate, they're victims. Silence them? They're victims.
And it's not silencing them. It's just taking away their megaphone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
