That opposing political view: “you cannot live your life. I want to deport, imprison, or execute you.”
First, you are inventing an imaginary, extreme quote to justify actual, physical battery. If we are playing that game, should I take the most unhinged, violent statement made by anyone I believe shares your political alliance and permanently assign it to you?
Second, a random citizen on the street has zero institutional power to deport, imprison, or execute anyone. They are not an imminent threat. The state is the only entity with the power to imprison people, and as we’ve seen, the UK government is currently using that exact power to arrest 82-year-old pensioners simply for holding Palestine Action placards.
If someone is actively trying to physically harm you, you have every right to self-defense. But claiming that hearing a civilian’s political opinion on the street is the equivalent of an impending execution is intellectually dishonest. You are redefining speech as “violence” so you can use actual, physical violence while pretending to be the victim.
By cheering for the violent suppression of political expression, your worldview aligns perfectly with the actual authoritarianism of the current UK government, which is busy crushing dissent to ignore actual victims in Gaza.
I mean, I want to agree with you. But the amount of dog whistles used in such speeches, or “the fascist things I keep repeatedly saying should happen are actually an inside joke” defence–
That random citizen may not individually have the institutional right to such actions, but if speech advocating for such is allowed to spread and go unchecked society will degrade.
Some things shouldn’t be debated. Some “opposing views” shouldn’t be given a platform or granted the light of day.
Does that mean things may get messy and that mistakes may be made? Yeah. Probably. But allowing fascists into reasonable debate has gotten us to the shit show we find ourselves at today. You can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into.
I genuinely appreciate you saying that, and for what it’s worth, I actually understand the fear driving your perspective.
The media and political machines run on algorithms designed to make us terrified of each other. When you are constantly told that the people you disagree with are an existential threat to society, the instinct to just shut them down completely—even physically—makes sense emotionally. But history and psychology prove it is the absolute worst way to actually fix the problem.
Some things shouldn’t be debated. Some “opposing views” shouldn’t be given a platform or granted the light of day.
If you want to actually change minds and protect society, declaring that bad ideas “shouldn’t be heard” is the biggest mistake you can make.
Think about it from the perspective of psychology. If a child or a patient comes to a therapist with deeply troubled, harmful, or antisocial views, what happens if the therapist says, “Those ideas are unacceptable, and you are not allowed to speak them in here”?
The ideas don’t go away. They just fester in the dark. The therapist loses any ability to understand where those ideas came from, diagnose the root cause, or help the person untangle them. Listening to someone’s ideas—even abhorrent ones—isn’t about validating them. It’s about exposing them to the light so they can actually be treated and dismantled.
When you push bad ideas off the public platform, you don’t destroy them. You just force them into echo chambers where they are never challenged by better arguments, and where they metastasize into actual extremism.
Does that mean things may get messy and that mistakes may be made? Yeah. Probably… You can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into.
You might not always be able to reason them out of it, but you absolutely cannot beat them out of it.
Using violence against bad ideas is a trap. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this better than anyone when he wrote about the descending spiral of physical escalation: “Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.”
When you use a street mob to violently silence someone, you don’t prove their ideas wrong. You just prove their paranoid worldview right. You convince them—and anyone watching—that they are a victim, and you guarantee that the next time they come back, they will bring their own weapons. Violence begets violence.
The only way to actually defeat bad ideas is to drag them out into the open, expose how weak they are, and defeat them with better ones. It is harder, it takes longer, but it is the only method that doesn’t end with us destroying society to save it.
If you want to actually change minds and protect society, declaring that bad ideas “shouldn’t be heard” is the biggest mistake you can make.
So, just to confirm, hate speech is cool with you? “I think that people with trait such and so are less than human.”
I mean, it is just an idea, and any idea deserves to be dragged out in the open and heard!
Or is that not what you’re advocating for? Because if you aren’t, then you must agree a line on what is and isn’t acceptable has to be drawn somewhere.
So, just to confirm, hate speech is cool with you? “I think that people with trait such and so are less than human.”
I want to be clear: believing anyone is “less than human” is an awful idea. We agree on that. But our disagreement is about how we actually cure hate.
First, we have to be careful not to reduce complex issues to extreme hypotheticals. Much of the UK immigration debate is about an overburdened post-COVID welfare system. Wanting stricter borders isn’t inherently declaring anyone “subhuman.”
But even if a random citizen does say something genuinely vile, we have the agency to not let a stranger’s words break us. An awful opinion is just an opinion.
Most importantly, we need to know why they hold that view. Extreme views often stems from profound, unaddressed trauma. Look at the tragic reality of the grooming gangs scandal, where horrific abuse was covered up for years by authorities terrified of being labeled “racist.”
If a victim of that systemic betrayal develops extreme, xenophobic views out of trauma, what does a street mob accomplish?
Letting someone speak isn’t about validating their conclusion. It’s about giving them the space to reveal the root of it so we can actually address it and shift their perception.
That opposing political view: “you cannot live your life. I want to deport, imprison, or execute you.”
First, you are inventing an imaginary, extreme quote to justify actual, physical battery. If we are playing that game, should I take the most unhinged, violent statement made by anyone I believe shares your political alliance and permanently assign it to you?
Second, a random citizen on the street has zero institutional power to deport, imprison, or execute anyone. They are not an imminent threat. The state is the only entity with the power to imprison people, and as we’ve seen, the UK government is currently using that exact power to arrest 82-year-old pensioners simply for holding Palestine Action placards.
If someone is actively trying to physically harm you, you have every right to self-defense. But claiming that hearing a civilian’s political opinion on the street is the equivalent of an impending execution is intellectually dishonest. You are redefining speech as “violence” so you can use actual, physical violence while pretending to be the victim.
By cheering for the violent suppression of political expression, your worldview aligns perfectly with the actual authoritarianism of the current UK government, which is busy crushing dissent to ignore actual victims in Gaza.
I mean, I want to agree with you. But the amount of dog whistles used in such speeches, or “the fascist things I keep repeatedly saying should happen are actually an inside joke” defence–
That random citizen may not individually have the institutional right to such actions, but if speech advocating for such is allowed to spread and go unchecked society will degrade.
Some things shouldn’t be debated. Some “opposing views” shouldn’t be given a platform or granted the light of day.
Does that mean things may get messy and that mistakes may be made? Yeah. Probably. But allowing fascists into reasonable debate has gotten us to the shit show we find ourselves at today. You can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into.
I genuinely appreciate you saying that, and for what it’s worth, I actually understand the fear driving your perspective.
The media and political machines run on algorithms designed to make us terrified of each other. When you are constantly told that the people you disagree with are an existential threat to society, the instinct to just shut them down completely—even physically—makes sense emotionally. But history and psychology prove it is the absolute worst way to actually fix the problem.
If you want to actually change minds and protect society, declaring that bad ideas “shouldn’t be heard” is the biggest mistake you can make.
Think about it from the perspective of psychology. If a child or a patient comes to a therapist with deeply troubled, harmful, or antisocial views, what happens if the therapist says, “Those ideas are unacceptable, and you are not allowed to speak them in here”?
The ideas don’t go away. They just fester in the dark. The therapist loses any ability to understand where those ideas came from, diagnose the root cause, or help the person untangle them. Listening to someone’s ideas—even abhorrent ones—isn’t about validating them. It’s about exposing them to the light so they can actually be treated and dismantled.
When you push bad ideas off the public platform, you don’t destroy them. You just force them into echo chambers where they are never challenged by better arguments, and where they metastasize into actual extremism.
You might not always be able to reason them out of it, but you absolutely cannot beat them out of it.
Using violence against bad ideas is a trap. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this better than anyone when he wrote about the descending spiral of physical escalation: “Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.”
When you use a street mob to violently silence someone, you don’t prove their ideas wrong. You just prove their paranoid worldview right. You convince them—and anyone watching—that they are a victim, and you guarantee that the next time they come back, they will bring their own weapons. Violence begets violence.
The only way to actually defeat bad ideas is to drag them out into the open, expose how weak they are, and defeat them with better ones. It is harder, it takes longer, but it is the only method that doesn’t end with us destroying society to save it.
So, just to confirm, hate speech is cool with you? “I think that people with trait such and so are less than human.” I mean, it is just an idea, and any idea deserves to be dragged out in the open and heard!
Or is that not what you’re advocating for? Because if you aren’t, then you must agree a line on what is and isn’t acceptable has to be drawn somewhere.
I want to be clear: believing anyone is “less than human” is an awful idea. We agree on that. But our disagreement is about how we actually cure hate.
First, we have to be careful not to reduce complex issues to extreme hypotheticals. Much of the UK immigration debate is about an overburdened post-COVID welfare system. Wanting stricter borders isn’t inherently declaring anyone “subhuman.”
But even if a random citizen does say something genuinely vile, we have the agency to not let a stranger’s words break us. An awful opinion is just an opinion.
Most importantly, we need to know why they hold that view. Extreme views often stems from profound, unaddressed trauma. Look at the tragic reality of the grooming gangs scandal, where horrific abuse was covered up for years by authorities terrified of being labeled “racist.”
If a victim of that systemic betrayal develops extreme, xenophobic views out of trauma, what does a street mob accomplish?
Letting someone speak isn’t about validating their conclusion. It’s about giving them the space to reveal the root of it so we can actually address it and shift their perception.