preasket

Any tactic that they can use to argue, you can use too. Plus, you have the truth on your side. Why wouldn't the optimal view win? The justification "they'd do it if they were to come to power" can be applied to any group and leads to authoritarianism. Trust that people are, in total, not idiots. There will always be some dangerous people, but that's unavoidable.

Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn't legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.

Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn't legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.

Well, you have to at least try. It will be effective to some extent. If they use distortion or intimidation, reveal it and make them look dumb. Emotional manipulation can be used by all sides. Of course, if they resort to violence, you are free to supress violence with violence.

So, what do you propose to do with fascists, racists, etc? Kill them? Debate is an opportunity to get those people, who are probably very dissatisfied with life, on the right path. Removal from platforms leads to them creating their own, isolated groups that get ever more radicalised. Every view, however dumb it may be, is worthy of debate or of at least being seen (people are free to ignore it). Not all views are equally valid, of course, but the validity of views is determined precisely during debate and argumentation. I don't support fascism, racism, etc but if there's a shortcut to remove those views from the public, the same shortcut can be used to remove anything! That's a clear route to authoritarianism.

Some won't be persuaded, some will. Plus, when there's a bunch of people in a room, there's a collective will to find consensus and be liked. People who didn't reason themselves into their position will move their views closer to that of the collective to be more comfortable. At the same time, if they are being banned and restricted, there's an instinctual will to fight back. E.g. if someone is angry at me or hostile towards me, it almost doesn't matter if I agree with them, I'm likely to oppose them.

Do you think your position is somehow inferior and you cannot persuade people? If not, do just that.

Common ground is not necessarily right in the middle

Anger and bans and lack of discussion is exactly what fuels it. Let natural attrition happen and people will find common ground.

Suppressing different views on a platform doesn’t make them go away, it only radicalises them. The only real, long term solution is debate and persuasion.