Is bullshit.. That's why it's a paradox. Intolerance of "intolerance" is intolerance!

And as a matter of logic, the first person who argues that someone just shouldn't have a right to speak, is the very FIRST person who should lose the right to speak in such a case. As the are LITERALLY the threat to freedom that they claim to worry about.

> And as a matter of logic, the first person who argues that someone just shouldn't have a right to speak, is the very FIRST person who should lose the right to speak in such a case.

This is another reason why dropping Kiwi Farms was the right decision.

I understand people have mixed feelings about the Paradox of Tolerance, but I generally don't think that it even comes into play here except in its most pure form (Popper was a lot more narrow about what he considered intolerable speech than most people realize). I'm not here to litigate Popper -- the Paradox of Tolerance is worth talking about in general, but I don't think that the Kiwi Farms' ideology was the most dangerous thing about the site. I think that they were actively pushing people off of the Internet. They were actively taking away the rights of other people to speak.

The ideology of Kiwi Farms (to the extent it has one) is dangerous, but it's a secondary conversation from what the site was really doing.

I heard so many stories during this campaign from people talking about how they were scared to go online, how their family members were being intimidated just to get at them, how systematically isolated they felt. Is that the result of an ideology with negative consequences, or is that the result of a site that's just literally and plainly threatening freedom of discourse online? I think it's the second.

And I saw a lot of excuses made to Kiwi Farms victims that they could make the abuse stop by just not being public online: not talking about it, not streaming or having online businesses. Essentially, the solution people proposed to stop that abuse was to go away and stop existing in the public sphere so that Kiwi Farms wouldn't have a "reason" to target them. Well, when someone is arguing that the correct way to combat abuse is for the victims to give up their speech rights and to exit the public sphere, then who should be the first person to lose their right to speak in that case?