3 ms·
Right, but it seems like such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. In other words, it would not prevent people from voicing their opinions, it wo
by md224 13y ago
Right, but it seems like such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. In other words, it would not prevent people from voicing their opinions, it would merely force them to include other opinions alongside their own.
You're right that such a policy isn't really feasible in terms of real-world implementation. But I do worry that the Internet has problems with polarization and filter-bubbling, and I appreciate suggestions for trying to mitigate those issues.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Torgo 13y agoDo you figure he'd insert opposing viewpoints into feminist "safe spaces?" Maybe people worried about the government exerting "cognitive infiltration" want a safe space free of government cognitive infiltrators.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago>such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others. Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference. Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.