3 ms·
But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it. Again, going with the current example. Indian subcontine
by actuator 6y ago
But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it.
Again, going with the current example. Indian subcontinent has had a tumultuous history mostly in the last millenium. It has been ravaged by conquests involving destruction of a lot of things that the pagan culture(now referred as a religion) held dear. Even though now the part of the subcontinent that is India now is majority that religion. There is resentment for/from every religion that came from outside. There are still unresolved things which can cause things to flare up easily.
We have seen this flare up in US, say LA riots. Imagine a culture which has had issues about their identity and injustices in the past for far longer. Imagine people allowed to build narratives that incite violence freely and spread them like wildfire. It can turn deadly fast and has in the past.
- throwaway45349 6y agoNot easily, but I think it's the only reasonable stance. Anything else is too subjective and easily falls into slippery slope territory. Long term, I know harm will be minimised through free speech.
- krapp 6y ago> But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it. I mean, the only possible answer a free speech absolutist can honestly give is "as much as necessary." As with any absolutist position, one cannot permit valuing human life over the ideal. Once you do otherwise, you're a relativist, and the ideal is diminished. And let's be fair - even most self-described free speech absolutists are relativists at heart.