Philosophers should not be sanctioned for their positions on sex and gender
I came late to realize the existence of this problem, and discovered it when someone on Twitter blocked me <i>simply for asking about</i> Jordan Peterson. ¯\_(ツ)_&#x2F;¯<p>I fail to see how sanctioning&#x2F;blocking&#x2F;banning&#x2F;censuring&#x2F;deplatforming is compatible with open honest debate (these are all basically the <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Argumentum_ad_baculum" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Argumentum_ad_baculum</a> fallacy, &quot;punishment-as-argument&quot;), in any event, and since I strongly believe in the latter, I fall on the &quot;strong free speech&quot; side. (My Twitter account has all of 9 blocked accounts, and those are mostly things like low-signal-to-noise-ratio businesses with lots of promoted tweets)<p>There are people who believe that ideas exist that are both bad and that cannot be defeated rationally, but I think they are wrong. Take racism, for example (I&#x27;ve argued against racists): They will come at you with supporting (correlational) data, so you come at them with this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Height_and_intelligence" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Height_and_intelligence</a> and then you ask them whether they&#x27;re shorter than average and still want to act on these correlations they put so much stock in, because in that case they need to now act against their own interests (favor preferential hiring of tall people, etc.), and you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet. ;)