3 ms·
I personally concur with the strategy of empathy and courtesy, but others won't, and I don't think that's anywhere close to a good reason to kick them out of ci
by tmp20191006cars 7y ago
I personally concur with the strategy of empathy and courtesy, but others won't, and I don't think that's anywhere close to a good reason to kick them out of civil discussion.
But I simply don't buy the "hurt and suffering" argument. Just because someone has a different opinion and expresses it doesn't mean the hearer is hurt and suffering to any degree that has a snowball's chance in hell of overwhelming the right to have and express a different opinion. The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad.
- MauranKilom 7y agoNot to use this as an argument but as something to think about: Picture that second paragraph of yours in the context of racism instead of gender. It's not the same thing, but it leaves me unconvinced in the same ways.
- shard972 7y agobeing racist is a first amendment right
- otterley 7y agoNo, no it isn’t. In a private forum, you lose your rights as soon as you walk in the door. The host makes the rules, not you. You stay at their pleasure. Also, I find it odd to describe lack of empathy and courtesy as “civil discussion.” If anything, it is the opposite of civility.
- mthoms 7y ago>I personally concur with the strategy of empathy and courtesy, but others won't, and I don't think that's anywhere close to a good reason to kick them out of civil discussion. The very definition of "civil" is "courteous and polite" (Oxford). >The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad For better or worse, there is no such thing as a "right to express opinions" on a privately owned internet site.