3 ms·

> It would probably be worthwhile to have a much more empirical approach, trying to actually measure what the impact of prohibiting certain speech is. Who get

• Barrin92 4y ago
  Sure, but that's nothing special. Any measuring, any science is done by people with the usual biases, that's hardly a reason against doing science and acting on empirical results. In medicine, law, economics there's always heavy political biases but that doesn't mean making judgements based on data is worse than making no decsisions or just making our preferred conclusions up. This rhetoric is exactly what I meant when I said free speech has quasi religious status. A perfectly normal, obvious fact, that measurements and decisions are made by biased people is presented as an argument to put free speech beyond questioning or a science based approach.
  • yucky 4y ago
    > that's hardly a reason against doing science Determining what people should be allowed to say is not scientific by any measure, and trying to pretend it is completely discredits the argument. What should be acceptable to say is centered around feelings which shift with the winds. That is not science, it is pseudoscience by definition. If you have a better argument, feel free to make it. If not, this line of thought can be dismissed out of hand.