Hacker News Reader

If we can't debate against nazism or slavery and win in the eyes of the audience, on democratic terms, I guess it is to late to be "intolerant of intolerance" and democracy has already failed.

So what if one in a thousand (or whatever the number is) want to reinstate slavery?

It seems like a nonsensical position to limit freedom of expression of everyone to quench a hypothetical Nazi takeover.

View on HN

As I recall democracy did fail to settle both of these questions and instead they were settled by force of arms.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that the "out group" would have been abolitionists in the 1700s. I also didn't say that a democracy can't fail.

That kind of depended where you where. In Pennsylvania among the Quakers not necessarily. But antebellum history can easily be viewed as a long, unsuccessful attempt to settle this question democratically at a national level.

> If we can't debate against nazism or slavery and win in the eyes of the audience, on democratic terms, I guess it is to late to be "intolerant of intolerance" and democracy has already failed.

Probably, yes. Democracy is bad at edge cases (Hitler was democratically elected) and undemocratic means must sometimes be used. Deplatforming is pretty mild as far as undemocratic means go.

Such is life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com