2 ms·
well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with. groups have become adept with i
by Shivetya 12y ago
well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with.
groups have become adept with identity politics, they use it to stop debate. When your ideas are unpopular you instead lay claim that the attack is bigoted because the disagreement stems from the the identity of the person's whose idea was debated, not their idea. This allows one side to effectively stifle debate and run amok
- astrobe_ 12y ago> well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with. Or you need a third party that defines what is offensive and what isn't. The "right to offence" is like an arms race to me. But in arms races, it's not rightness or truth that win. It's power. The only case where power should win is when it's people's power, id est democracy. That's why I accept, at least in principle, laws and courts as the "third party".