Its not necessarily a good or effective way, but the only one we got, as it seems. It definitely works better than discussing those ideas. That only works with people who do not actively lie to win that discussion. If one side does not care about the truth, discussions are pointless. Brain are not computers. Giving such people a platform and allowing them to repeat their lies unfortunately does lead to more people subscribing to those lies, just because they get repeated often enough.
Note that I do not talk about "the government" doing this. I am just talking about some people choosing not to give other people a platform.
This is a fine argument for censorship in general. Sadly, we have centuries of evidence that such an approach is ultimately futile. If you concede that censorship "definitely works better than discussion", you're ultimately conceding the debate.
A far better approach is to draw a hard red line and not allow anyone to cross it - e.g. if you're advocating for ending democracy or free speech - no democracy or free speech for you. Otherwise, you gotta find a way to defeat bad ideas without trying to shut them out. If you attempt to censor (use whatever euphemisms you prefer, but that's all it is), you'll fail, and do irreparable damage to your own arguments in the process.
But who then decides if someone crossed that red line? And what if that decision is being done in bad faith?
Again, I am not talking about censorship by the government. I am talking about some people deciding its not worth to listen to some other people, and therefore not giving them a platform? Isn't that my free choice - you can talk freely, but I can just not listen to you?
Isn't what you propose - taking away the right to free speech - far worse than censorship? Would you jail people if they still speak freely after they crossed that red line?
Honestly if a bunch of people wanted to censor someone I would want to listen to that person even more.
I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here. We have red lines in conversations already. E.g. advocating violence against another group of people is a red line for a lot of people. E.g. Advocating the superiority of one particular race is usually a red line for people.
> Honestly if a bunch of people wanted to censor someone I would want to listen to that person even more.
Sure, you can do that. For me, it would probably depend on who did the "censoring" (see below).
> I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here.
Wait, who's the devil here? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean.
Again: it am not talking about censorship by the government, I am simply talking about not listening to certain people. For me, in Germany, I would for example categorically refuse to listen to and engage in discussions with voters of the "AfD" party (right-wing party, with one leader that you can officially call a fascist based on a court decision) or the so called "Querdenker" people.
You're basically arguing for what totalitarian regimes do when they censor any speech they deem undesirable.
I'm sure you will reply that the type of speech you want to censor is actually bad but who decides that? You?
Freedom of speech without significant negative consequences is one of the main principles of a democratic society. As long as the speech in question is not promoting violence it should be allowed.
The fact that so many liberals now think that it's desirable to have consequences for expressing a wrong opinion is mind boggling and scary. That is a completely illiberal stance. It's also stupid because it somehow misses the point of freedom of speech being a principle. What if these woke people faced significant negative consequences for expressing THEIR opinions?
Note that I do not talk about "the government" doing this. I am just talking about some people choosing not to give other people a platform.