[darkerside]

That's a very relativistic definition of morals. That's not too say it isn't valid, but there are tradeoffs to adopting a framework like that. One of them is that it inevitably shifts over time, making it more prone to abuse.

On a separate note, I don't agree with your breakdown of people because I think it's possible to have principles that are not partisanship but are also orthogonal to "mob good" vs "mob bad".

[cornel_io]

A lot of people would say "consequence culture" is a valid viewpoint on this, that people just need to face the music for the things that they say, and that there's nothing nefarious about it. That's well and good to claim, but I have yet to hear one of these people be anything but angry when a lefty is torn down by a right wing mob, which has me lumping them in with the partisans.

Maybe a charitable interpretation of the motivations fo that philosophy is "my mob is correct, your mob is not", but the end result is the same.

While I guess it is possible to have another consistent view, I think they mostly boil down to the specifics of where to draw the "bad speech" line. And I think in reality the vast majority of people who don't take a hard free-speech-for-all (asterisk: except people whose words are so horrible that a huge number of people agree) stance on this set the line based on their own politics rather than any stable set of principles.

[darkerside]

> I have yet to hear one of these people be anything but angry

That's because you don't "hear" people be silent.