3 ms·
It also helps set and/or make visible the window of acceptable-to-some-(epsilon,delta)-part-of-the-populace speech; that’s good because it prevents Bad Things f
by nullfield 4y ago
It also helps set and/or make visible the window of acceptable-to-some-(epsilon,delta)-part-of-the-populace speech; that’s good because it prevents Bad Things from forming in a vacuum before suddenly appearing in the mainstream… but it can also be uncomfortable for some, or cause anxiety or fear. It seems better to get an opportunity to confront Bad Things, or debunk them, or whatever though.
Obviously it’s not okay or legal to threaten someone, but on the other hand we also get taught to a large degree that you have no right to not have your feelings hurt. This intuitively makes sense to me too-can you imagine if you tried to speak nearly anything and had to ensure that no one, anywhere, had their feelings hurt or felt anxious from it?
Speech outside that may not get you arrested, but it can certainly have personal and professional implications.
As an example (and they’re not all this clear-cut), it’s perfectly legal to espouse “plain racism” but it’s not a generally accepted thing, nor considered moral, and quite likely to cause you some backlash or, if applicable, loss of professional standing.
- kube-system 4y agoWell said. I agree, allowing bad opinions to be countered publicly is really important. Peer pressure is way more effective in changing bad opinions than unilateral pressure from someone preconceived to be a political enemy. The latter usually just cements bad opinions as justified.