zlacker

>>bradge+(OP)
I don't follow this kind of thing so forgive my ignorance. Why was "platforming" DHH bad? Honest question.

>>kkaske+H9
He posted a personal blog post a few days ago decrying that London is not white enough. He has a history of very right-leaning positions.

>>alphag+Np
These kind of statements frustrate me. They are kind of manufactured consent statements. I likely don't agree with DHH positions as shared here, but when did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad? I wouldn't even mind if the position was that platforming either is good/bad. The framing here begs the question.

>>thevil+Mx
The left-leaning ones usually don't call for the eradication of certain peoples.

>>pebble+8E
Neither side can claim not to be violent. Obviously.

>>bn-l+XQ1
If we're talking about the US, that's a straw man. There was a study that made objectively clear that the right is several times more actively violent than the left.

"Both sides" is a euphemistic fig leaf of an argument at best.

>>sleigh+hd3
If you actually look at the data, that "study" assigned a lot of really unclear or marginal cases to "right wing". They also didn't count a lot of obvious left wing political violence as "left wing".