I was talking about you being able to peer into someone's head and then label them mischievous and a liar. That's different from denying understanding of the se

I was talking about you being able to peer into someone's head and then label them mischievous and a liar. That's different from denying understanding of the semantics of language and how they apply to the real world. > Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible. If I express a viewpoint that has been proven wrong thousands of times, such as "Hitler did nothing wrong", I'm not seeking discussion, but rather seeking to annoy. That's obvious and not being civil. If I hide insults in my argument, that's also not being civil. However, if I express a controversial but novel opinion on a subject that is not closed, it shouldn't automatically be lumped into being the same as the first two categories.