4 ms·

Percentage of the populace who would be excluded. The ranking is simply a comparison of that number.

• kergonath 6y ago
  That does not work. You need to be familiar enough with an issue to debate it, otherwise it’s just uninformed noise. It’s not because a subject is interesting only a small niche that there is no freedom of “debate”. Conversely, 80% of a population shouting at one another on Twitter is no debate at all. So you’d first have to define the relevant part of the population, which is hopeless. And then you have debates about who should be part of the debate, which is not much better than what we have now.
  • unishark 6y ago
    > It’s not because a subject is interesting only a small niche that there is no freedom of “debate”. Did I suggest otherwise? It may be hard to do accurately, but that doesn't make it hopeless. If both sides want to exclude "crackpots" and people who's contributions lack technical quality, that is simply accounted for in the estimate. Whether you think that's fair to therefore characterize everyone as "intolerant" is another matter . I certainly wouldn't characterize them that way, though I get the impression the parent poster might, though perhaps only as a way to claim moral equivalence between all sides. I would expect there to remain quantifiable differences between those who claim they want a "healthy debate from all sides" and those who want to achieve social progress by limiting access to the debate.