Lemmy is a Tankie Bar.

People like to refer to the paradox of tolerance but always skip out on the inconvenient bit:

""Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""

If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn't be bigoted, I don't know what to tell you.

Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?

Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a "Nazi bar", so is the internet or any "platform".

Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn't discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It's also a disservice to better ideas

• it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
• instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.

Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.

Paradox of intolerance?

The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.

Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It's the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.

[^popper-source]: Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper

So how is that different when it’s online vs offline?