3 ms·
> That’s not a good thing. It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply ad
by chasing 9y ago
> That’s not a good thing.
It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply adds nothing good to the world. I don't think it should be illegal necessarily, but I'm fine if people are ostracized for holding such views. I certainly don't want to be exposed to that kind of shit.
And there are many situations which require learning and understanding to participate. A software developer would be appalled if they had to continue to have debates at work about software development with someone who had no idea how computers work -- especially if that person was adamant that their views much be heard and listened to. "Why is my opinion that we should write our iOS app in ActiveX being SILENCED?" Again, that dumb opinion shouldn't be made illegal. But maybe that person doesn't need to be invited to developer meetings any more.
You get my point.
Lots of subtlety when it comes to free speech.
Not all controversial opinions are the same.
- asabjorn 9y agoWho decides what is the correct opinion and what is not? There is a reason why advanced societies are ruled by the rule of law and not the rule of the mob.
- bostik 9y agoSince we're on the topic of questioning dogmas: is that the rule of law or the rules set by the biggest mob?
- asabjorn 9y agoI don't see the analogy. In the rule of law you have a code of law, judges, juries and long deliberations. In criminal law the bar of evidence is preponderance of evidence, while in mob rule you need no evidence and you do not have to listen to both sides.
- bostik 9y ago> you have a code of law Q.E.D.