No-platforming is often vastly superior to “engaging in a civil debate”

There are behaviors and positions that are unacceptable, and to even act like they’re debatable is to give them undue credence

Platforming extremists in order to “show how foolish their positions are” is irresponsible. No-platforming, on the other hand, works. It’s safer you, and for the community around you.

Like, I get the logic of “they’re so awful, someone has to publicly challenge them!” But actually we just have to dismiss them and refuse to let them shift the Overton window.

This is one of the biggest pitfalls of “civility” discourse. It too often ignores history and context and even content itself, and focuses on tone. As if the danger lies in the number of decibels!

It’s abhorrent to engage “respectfully” with N*zis. In fact, there is no way to do so that doesn’t profoundly *disrespect* Jewish people, all people of color, all LGBTQ people, etc. Universal requirement of *politeness*? Is *disrespectful*.

So. No-platforming and ignoring is often ideal. When that’s not feasible, sometimes fierce and unyielding speech - not “nice,” and not “dialogue” - is often the next best thing. But acting like poison is safe to engage with is foolish, and imperils community wellbeing.

Anyway, the whole “respect the dignity of every human person” thing is tricky because, unfortunately, it’s much more complicated than “be pleasant to everyone else who’s on the internet.”