|
|
|
|
|
by spaginal
2649 days ago
|
|
It’s not up to you to decide the validity of speech or opinions, and who gets exposed to what. In a free society this isn’t your call to make. The benchmark of critical thinking faculties is commonly a political test when it comes to speech, and is a convenient excuse people, and governments use. Look at Twitter. A bunch of people on all political sides of an issue labeling eachother as evil, dangerous, idiots, etc. No one listening to eachother. Everyone judging eachother, no one is immune from it. Now give the power to shut down speech to one of those sides and use your litmus test as the basis for qualifying appropriate speech. What do you think is the end result? Banning speech or ideas is lazy thinking, easy to do and repeatable once accepted as a solution, and most importantly dangerous. Far more dangerous than the idea it’s trying to silence. |
|
I don't know about that. In the real world, there are homicidal maniacs, deranged ideologues trying to incite violence, paid propaganda outfits, state actors who masquerade as legitimate voices. If allowing them free rein is the price for "freedom", I'd rather have a little less freedom, because that sort of freedom is unsustainable and will, inevitably, destroy itself.