3 ms·

Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be exp

Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences? Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own judgements.

ww520 10y ago
> Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.
- clavalle 10y ago
  >Who's the judge for validity anyway? The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression. To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. >when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression. There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no. Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment. Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.
  - ww520 10y ago
    > To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. I think we are in agreement here. > Should all views be accepted as equally valid? > Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment. These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like. The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken without fear of repercussion. However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and bully the people expressing the opposing views. Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship just because their view. If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.
    - clavalle 10y ago
      >Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.
      - ww520 10y ago
        That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field. Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food? If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.
        10y ago

ww520 10y ago

> Should all views be accepted as equally valid? Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.

clavalle 10y ago
>Who's the judge for validity anyway? The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression. To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. >when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression. There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no. Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment. Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.
- ww520 10y ago
  > To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty. I think we are in agreement here. > Should all views be accepted as equally valid? > Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment. These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like. The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken without fear of repercussion. However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and bully the people expressing the opposing views. Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship just because their view. If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.
  - clavalle 10y ago
    >Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.
    - ww520 10y ago
      That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field. Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food? If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.
      - 10y ago