3 ms·
The flip side, which you seem to endorse, is that people should have no way to censure (in the realm of public discourse or social opinion, not any legal sense)
by Frondo 11y ago
The flip side, which you seem to endorse, is that people should have no way to censure (in the realm of public discourse or social opinion, not any legal sense) those whose views they don't agree with.
Obviously, Eich had some widely unpopular views, and much of the country didn't agree with his beliefs.
No one sued him, no one jailed him, people who didn't agree with him on a widely-debated social issue of the day just created a media campaign to draw attention to his retrograde views.
I'm curious, though. If he were donating to a more offensive cause, like the KKK or something, would you hold the same position that his political views should be beyond discussion?
- sanxiyn 11y agoYes. In my opinion, as long as someone doesn't try to preach KKK value in the community or come to community gathering wearing KKK robe, whether someone donates to KKK is beyond discussion.
- Frondo 11y agoOn what basis do you think that someone's political views should be beyond mere discussion? I'm trying to figure out why--discussing the views held by your fellow citizen--that is a bad thing. I'm trying to understand how that advances any sort of democratic principle, to draw the line at "you can't talk about what I donate to".