At what point does someone who is mostly reasonable, with a few bad takes become someone not worth listening to? Also, can we separate the art from the artist? For example with Badempanada, he has a couple bad China takes and is kind of toxic online, but he’s well researched, so it really depends whether ML’s I’ve met listen to him. Do you listen to Maoists who are good 95% of the time, but might have a bad Gonzalo take from time to time? Or is there enough agreeable content on the internet that you can just listen to those you agree with? Are certain bad takes just too bad? Will you stop listening to someone after they say something transphobic, even if they’re good the rest of the time like Paul Cockshott? Or if someone is willing to talk with someone like a Larouchite, are they automatically a right deviationist with nothing worthwhile to say, or are the just forming a United front on a specific issue?
I don’t really mean with everyday people, of course the average person is going to have reactionary ideas, but those can be educated away. I’m wondering primarily about content creators, and if it’s worth consuming their content if their ideas are to unprincipled.
I think it can be useful to consume content of people you don’t always agree with. I’m currently reading some books that are leaning between liberalism and socdem. Partly because they have been gifted to me by my girlfriend and I feel bad for not reading them, and partly because why not?
I don’t agree with some of their takes and I think some of their takes are outright bad. But it’s good to see how these people think and to think about how I can use this to further my own cause.
But for many content creators you don’t agree with, for whatever reason, it’s probably not worth it. Especially the ones with hurtful ideas. Not consuming them (or at least consuming them in a way that does not benefit the creators) should be the way to go.
Or you can take the path of consuming them and criticizing them publicly in the hope that people on the fence will listen to your points.
Outright hateful or (purposefully) false information may very well be banned for all I care. A right wing politician over here was doing a tour for his book on The Great Replacement with information that has been debunked time after time and was just filled with racist shit. The freeze peach people said he MUST DO HIS TOUR!!! but I personally wouldn’t have a problem with just banning his bullshit. If you want a meaningful debate about immigration, that’s fine. Just spewing your hate speech while disguising it as free speech is not.
My other comments should be qualified by this final paragraph ^
I’m not a fan of giving reactionaries a free hand to say whatever they want on any media platform. I don’t ‘believe in free speech’. My longer comment was more about how I engage with videos, books, articles, etc.
Edit: clarification
I understand, and do listen to people I disagree with whether socdem or ultra-left. Is anyone not worth listening to at all, or is it reasonable to listen to anyone as long as you stay critical or use it as a means to know your enemy more?
I think it’s the latter: read and stay critical.