| I didn't mean to imply that any individual has an obligation to explain why they're wrong, (though I do feel that as a society overall we do) but that it at least gives a chance to explain to people why their views might not actually be based in reality instead of pushing people towards others that will just confirm their incorrect/ignorant/whatever views. I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet. I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them". >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...." Totally ok with that, no censorship. >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future" Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it. >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community." Alternatively, >"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone. Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views. |
As a society, we absolutely have a need to educate. In individual instances, most of the time I find it's not worth doing more than pointedly saying, "RUDE," and walking away. (This is when presented with bigotries, not just any idea I disagree with. I'll listen to you be wrong about using emacs instead of vim all day, I won't listen to you be wrong about whether or not a class of people deserves to be treated equally, especially if membership to that class of people is involuntary.)
On HN, there are people who can have a negative effect on you or your career, and you should conduct yourself as such on here. It's a public, non-anonymous forum and should be treated as such. In addition, there's a difference between well-intentioned opinion that comes from an ignorant place and an ill-intentioned one. "Kill all bluists," is different than, "Bluists are more likely to commit violent crime."
I'm not saying the status quo is always right, nor am I trying to imply it, rather I'm stating that you should have defensible rationalizations for their opinions whether or not they fit the status quo, but if they differ you should be able to reason it. If you don't have a thought-out reason for your opinions and you still find them valid, there's no way for a conversation to actually occur.
As for "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." You lost me, I don't exactly understand the point that you're making with that example, is there a more concrete example you can give?