That's exactly what will happen. These people don't seem to realize that it's not some institutional conspiracy that keeps their ideas on the fringe: It's the fact that most people find them and their ideas toxic, dumb, boring, and/or repellent.
The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Instead of attacking people, attack their arguments.
No one has been shut down from continuing the "conversation" on their own platforms. You're not allowed to wander into Wal-Mart and sell whatever you want. You're also not allowed to wander onto Patreon and sell whatever you want.
It took a couple of days for SubscribeStar to have their paypal access removed once the loonies began their next witch hunt.
How far do we take the witch hunts before we decide enough is enough?
If everyone in the world decided not to trade with people they didn't agree with on everything, there would exist no trade.
You really need to stop making judgements about people.
But thank you for playing the role of "guy who argues in bad faith." I think we're done, here.
We have legal systems which can deal with accusation of crimes. If you suspect somebody to be a child molester, you can report them. The legal system makes the judgement. It also prevents you from falsely accusing somebody of molestation if you do so without evidence or reasonable motive.
The same legal system should apply to anyone being or claiming to be white supremacist. Their action is not a crime unless they are inciting crime (ie, calling for racial genocide). If the latter is the case, then they should be prosecuted following the due process. Witch hunting is not due process.
I also think the same legal process should be applied to the far-left, who are frequently falsely accusing people of something they are not. Unfortunately, most people do not have the resources to fight anonymous twitter trolls for libel.
This case with Sargon can be seen as a pretty good example of your argument falling apart. He is frequently labeled as some kind of alt-right white supremacist, when it is precisely this he denounces publicly. (Yes, his words were not the most appropriate, but words are meaningless without context. Patreon specifically ignored the context.)
What has become of the left, is not that they're shunning white supremacists, but they are shunning anybody that they perceive to be a white supremacist. A whole different story. If you have loose definitions like "hate speech", then it is justified to take down anyone you perceive to be your political opponent according to your standards.
Another example case was the witch hunt against Kavanaugh. It seems the left are determined to dismantle the idea of due process and putting people before judge and jury for the sake of virtue signalling and social "justice" (an oxymoron).
People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists.
I'm not suggesting anything of the like. In fact, I will join you in shunning white supremacists, as I would shun supremacists of any race.
When "shunning" becomes more than denunciation, but taking action to unperson people and have them fired, cut off their finance, and make false accusations about their peers, I draw the line.
If you want to keep believing in the moral superiority of that kind of social justice, be my guest.
That is just a foolish phrase by a Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to take it as Gospel.
Many people all over the world disagree, including centrist and far-left people.
His protest was against government compelled speech.
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...
" In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them."
Conveniently leaving out what happens if you don't pay a fine: you can end up in jail.
Another thing is they state things need to become really bad before you get prosecuted so it won't happen. Well that all depends on the political climate. Plenty examples in the world for that.
Lastly they mention other places in the law where speech is limited. But they point at places where certain speech is forbidden, not where it is compelled.
The entire article looks disingenuous.