If You Can’t Win the Argument, Don’t Try to Delete the Speaker

There is a difference between disagreement and censorship.

And apparently, some people need that explained with crayons.

You are allowed to disagree with me.

You can hate the bill I support. You can think my political position is ridiculous. You can believe my criticism of an organization is unfair. You can support a politician I cannot stand, or despise one I happen to agree with.

That is called disagreement.

Welcome to society.

Argue with me.

Correct me.

Challenge my sources.

Write your own article explaining why I am wrong.

But if your response to an opinion you do not like is to start mass-reporting someone's Facebook page, LinkedIn account, website, blog, YouTube channel, or other platform in hopes of getting them suspended or removed, that is not advocacy.

That is chicken-shit behavior with a broadband connection.

The Report Button Is Not Your Personal Hurt-Feelings Button

Online platforms need reporting systems.

There are legitimate reasons to report content.

Threats. Harassment. Scams. Impersonation. Illegal content. Actual violations of platform rules.

Those systems serve a real purpose.

What they are not supposed to be is a political eject button for people who make you uncomfortable.

Don't like someone's criticism?

Don't like the legislation they support?

Don't like what they said about your organization?

Someone questioned your favorite politician?

Someone criticized your political party?

Someone refuses to repeat the approved talking points?

“Report them” should not be your response

At some point, that stops looking like community moderation and starts looking like the online version of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, “I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”

Except with consequences.

That is not debate.

That is outsourcing censorship because you either cannot or will not defend your own position.

Bring Receipts, Not Report Buttons

If you think I am wrong, prove it.

Seriously.

That is how grown-up debate works.

If I cite a statistic incorrectly, bring the correct statistic.

If I misunderstand a bill, show me the section.

If I misrepresent a policy, provide the policy.

If I criticize an organization and you believe the criticism is unfair, explain why.

Bring receipts.

I might even change my mind.

Imagine that.

People discussing something, examining evidence, and occasionally adjusting their opinions.

Revolutionary concept, apparently.

But trying to silence someone proves absolutely nothing about whether your position is correct.

In fact, it often raises a much more interesting question:

If your argument is so strong, why are you terrified of someone questioning it?

If your organization is operating ethically, why are questions dangerous?

If your political position is defensible, why does the person challenging it need to disappear?

If your bill is good, explain the bill.

If your leader is right, defend the leader.

If your organization has nothing to hide, answer the damn question.

When the response to criticism is censorship instead of explanation, people start wondering what exactly you are trying to protect.

And sometimes that question is far more damaging than the original criticism.

Advocacy Is Supposed to Be Uncomfortable

This especially bothers me when it happens in advocacy spaces.

Advocacy is supposed to challenge systems.

We question government agencies.

We question legislation.

We question budgets.

We question policies.

We question whether programs actually work.

We question whether the people claiming to represent a community are actually listening to that community.

That is part of advocacy.

So it is spectacularly hypocritical when advocates demand transparency and accountability from everyone else but suddenly develop a severe allergy to criticism when the questions are pointed at them.

You cannot spend your morning yelling about government accountability and your afternoon trying to shut down someone who asked you an uncomfortable question.

That is not advocacy.

That is branding.

And if the only acceptable “advocate” is someone who smiles, nods, stays quiet, and never challenges the people with access, then congratulations.

You have not built a movement, You have built a fan club.

You Are Not Entitled to Agreement

One of the strangest things about modern political culture is the idea that disagreement itself is some kind of personal attack.

It isn't.

Someone disagreeing with you does not automatically mean they hate you.

Someone criticizing an organization does not mean they oppose its mission.

Someone questioning a bill does not mean they hate the people the bill is supposed to help.

Someone criticizing a politician does not mean they hate everyone who voted for that politician.

Sometimes people simply think you are wrong.

You will survive.

We have somehow reached a point where too many people expect ideological obedience instead of intellectual honesty.

Support the team.

Repeat the talking points.

Do not question leadership.

Do not criticize allies.

Do not point out hypocrisy.

Do not acknowledge flaws.

And whatever you do, do not make your own side uncomfortable.

No thanks.

I would rather occasionally piss people off than permanently surrender my ability to think.

Criticism Is Not Betrayal

You can support a mission and criticize the method.

You can support veterans while opposing a veterans bill, when the bill has intended or unintended consequences.

You can support military families while questioning organizations that claim to represent them.

You can support a political party while criticizing members of that party.

You can support a politician on ten issues and think they are completely full of shit on the eleventh.

That is not disloyalty.

That is having principles.

Criticism is not betrayal.

Sometimes criticism is the only thing keeping an organization, institution, political movement, or advocacy community from disappearing completely up its own ass.

Echo chambers feel comfortable.

They are also where bad ideas go to breed.

The people willing to ask uncomfortable questions are often more valuable than the people sitting quietly at the table nodding along because they are afraid they might lose their seat.

Popularity and integrity are not the same thing.

Sometimes they are barely on speaking terms.

Free Speech Gets Messy

People love saying they support free speech when the speech sounds exactly like their own opinions.

That is easy.

The real test is when someone says something you think is ridiculous, offensive, politically wrong, misguided, annoying, or completely detached from reality.

You do not have to agree.

You do not have to applaud.

You do not even have to be polite about the argument.

Freedom of speech includes criticism.

It includes disagreement.

It includes someone telling you that your argument is garbage.

And it includes your right to return the favor.

That friction is part of living in a society where people are allowed to think independently.

What it should not include is weaponizing systems simply because someone hurt your feelings, embarrassed your organization, criticized your political team, or refused to stay in their assigned ideological lane.

If You Cannot Out-Argue Them

Here is the simplest version.

If someone's argument is bad, demonstrate that it is bad.

If their facts are wrong, correct them.

If their reasoning is flawed, expose the flaw.

If they are misleading people, present better information.

If you have evidence they are lying, show the evidence.

But if the only card you have left to play is trying to remove their ability to speak?

Maybe the problem is not their argument.

Maybe it is yours.

Trying to delete the speaker because you cannot defeat the argument does not make you principled.

It does not make you an activist.

It does not make you an advocate.

And it sure as hell does not make you brave.

It makes you a coward with Wi-Fi and a report button.

Welcome to Adulthood

Adults disagree.

Sometimes loudly.

Sometimes sarcastically.

Sometimes with enough profanity to make a sailor pause and admire the craftsmanship.

And somehow civilization keeps limping along.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me.

Frankly, that sounds boring as hell.

I expect people to challenge what I write. I expect people to question my positions. I expect people to tell me when they believe I am wrong.

What I also expect is that we can manage disagreement without trying to erase one another from the internet (or life).

So criticize me.

Debate me.

Fact-check me.

Write your own blog.

Make your own video.

Post your rebuttal.

Tell everyone exactly why you think I am full of shit.

That is fair game.

But if your first instinct when someone says something you dislike is to run for the report button and try to take away their platform, do not dress it up as protecting democracy, defending advocacy, or creating a safer community.

Call it what it is.

You could not win the argument, so you tried to make the person disappear.

You do not have to agree with a damn word someone says to recognize that silencing them is the coward's substitute for answering them.