Hitler *was* opposed with reason & evidence. He still took power. He didn’t do that by winning most votes or seats. He did it through using speech & force to build hate among his supporters and fear among his opponents. That’s why we no-platform Nazis.
Nazis want *debate* - to sit on the stage in public as if their ideas are legitimate. To present themselves & be accepted as reasonable.
Contesting Nazi ideas doesn’t need this debate. We discuss with children, students about Hitler without inviting a Nazi in to the class room.
Contesting Nazi ideas doesn’t need this debate. We discuss with children, students about Hitler without inviting a Nazi in to the class room.
Allowing people a platform doesn’t stop them claiming they’ve been silenced.
Decriminalising hate speech wouldn’t stop fascists claiming they are victims.
Decriminalising hate speech wouldn’t stop fascists claiming they are victims.
No platforming isn’t the same as state censorship.
No platform is when people with a platform choose not to allow it to be used by people pushing ideas that are beyond the bounds of legitimate debate.
Like genocide.
No platform is when people with a platform choose not to allow it to be used by people pushing ideas that are beyond the bounds of legitimate debate.
Like genocide.
And when people choose to give a platform to fascists, no platforming is a political tool to show that we believe their ideas are illegitimate - outside the bounds of what can or should be debated as a “good idea”.
Like we’d protest a *debate* about whether rape is OK.
Like we’d protest a *debate* about whether rape is OK.
No platforming isn’t censorship.
It’s a political tool to *publish* our stance that the ideas the speaker is promoting are illegitimate - outside the bounds of public debate.
This means we are also giving publicity to the speaker - but that’s a cost we think is justified.
It’s a political tool to *publish* our stance that the ideas the speaker is promoting are illegitimate - outside the bounds of public debate.
This means we are also giving publicity to the speaker - but that’s a cost we think is justified.
When Enoch Powell tried to hold a speaking tour of universities in 1988, he was a notorious racist who was trying to legitimise his reputation - and thereby his racist ideas.
That’s why he was no platformed. +
That’s why he was no platformed. +
No platforming *is* divisive. It pushes people to take sides.
Some ideas call for divisiveness as the right political strategy. Some ideas call for their proponents to be shunned.
Nazism is one of those ideas.
Some ideas call for divisiveness as the right political strategy. Some ideas call for their proponents to be shunned.
Nazism is one of those ideas.
“Who decides who is pushing Nazi ideas?” some people ask.
If it’s a criminal prosecution for hate crime - then it’s the law and a court.
If it’s no platforming - then it’s the debate organisers or the protest organisers. That’s politics!
If it’s a criminal prosecution for hate crime - then it’s the law and a court.
If it’s no platforming - then it’s the debate organisers or the protest organisers. That’s politics!
“Can No Platform be mis-used?”
Sure. Any political strategy can be misused.
IMO that’s one reason why No Platform should only be used against people who’s ideas are widely regarded as abhorrent. Don’t dilute it.
Sure. Any political strategy can be misused.
IMO that’s one reason why No Platform should only be used against people who’s ideas are widely regarded as abhorrent. Don’t dilute it.
“Does No Platform mean I shouldn’t argue with my fascist relatives?”
No Platform is a tactic rooted in principle. It’s not a principle itself. If debating your uncle will help persuade your aunt, go for it.
No Platform is a tactic rooted in principle. It’s not a principle itself. If debating your uncle will help persuade your aunt, go for it.
