[dsfyu404ed]

>This is not news, and the real dangerous trend that I'm seeing is that antisocial behavior doesn't matter and should be protected. No, it shouldn't.

There was a time when approving of gay marriage or suggesting that women are equal to men in most regards would have been considered "antisocial" by a good chunk of the population.

There was also a time when it was not antisocial at all to suggest that certain races of people are superior to others.

Times change. Today's acceptable could very well be tomorrows antisocial and vise-versa.

[projektir]

I am not sure what is the point you're trying to make.

If we define a behavioral set, such as "antisocial", meaning, behavior not welcome in a society, why does the fact that we later expand this set indicate a problem with using the set?

[ahartman00]

because at one point the people arguing that certain races, genders, or sexualities are equal would have been the ones banned. That is the problem. Today's antisocial behavior could be tomorrow's norm. Unless you prevent them from making their case. That is to say, we also contract the set, we do not only expand it.

In addition, there is the problem of who 'we' is here. Today, the fringe on one side seems to feel it is self evident that they get to decide what is antisocial. They seem to be unaware that ~50% of the population is on the opposite side. And even more, they seem to be unaware that not everyone on their side takes it to such an extreme.