There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
If someone hates you and wants you dead, no appeal to their humanity will ever get them to stop using an evil tactic against you. The only way to make them stop is to use it against them, good and hard, until they relent and agree to a ceasefire.
see, this is where it gets sticky. though. If you advocate for freedom of speech for those who want to destroy freedom of speech, are you effectively protecting the principle?
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
put it this way. if someone is just an asshole and gets banned, yep, absolutely, defend them. if Harold the Happy Hippy gets on and talks about the "greatness" of communal living, yada yada, sure.
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
And is that speech destroying freedom of speech, or is it their ensuing actions?
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not going to shed a tear or waste too much energy on them. But I wouldn't cheer it on, nor advocate for such situations either. A dose of their own medicine is funny, but it's not a principle I'd uphold.
There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
If someone hates you and wants you dead, no appeal to their humanity will ever get them to stop using an evil tactic against you. The only way to make them stop is to use it against them, good and hard, until they relent and agree to a ceasefire.
see, this is where it gets sticky. though. If you advocate for freedom of speech for those who want to destroy freedom of speech, are you effectively protecting the principle?
Is their freedom of speech the thing that is destroying freedom of speech, or is it their actions?
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
put it this way. if someone is just an asshole and gets banned, yep, absolutely, defend them. if Harold the Happy Hippy gets on and talks about the "greatness" of communal living, yada yada, sure.
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
And is that speech destroying freedom of speech, or is it their ensuing actions?
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not going to shed a tear or waste too much energy on them. But I wouldn't cheer it on, nor advocate for such situations either. A dose of their own medicine is funny, but it's not a principle I'd uphold.