> you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Yep! That’s correct, and it’s also f

> you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Yep! That’s correct, and it’s also fine. I believe in my moral authority and I’m working to prostheletize it, and you can do the same, and whoever presents the more compelling case can shape society. Just because we disagree is no reason to declare the whole initiative unsolvable, or invalid. We should both keep advocating for the type of society we want. > your radical views The position I’m advocating is explicitly one of moderation: that free speech absolutism isn’t as appropriate a social creed as the much more subjective minimization of suffering. It is strictly less radical than the one it opposes.