[silicon2401]

I've found the opposite. Most people have disagreements on fundamental viewpoints which means there's no point even discussing. For example I take the position that freedom of speech is almost sacred, which rules out the chance of any productive conversation with most people who prioritize things like preventing somebody from getting offended. Instead I choose to avoid topics where I know I disagree with the mainstream, unless it's with a close enough friend where I know our relationship won't be damaged by touching on a topic of disagreement.

[vvvac]

freedom of speech != freedom to hate speech

There's a difference, words, speech do cause pain and terrible issues in society and has to be moderated like a forum. It's quite simple.

[silicon2401]

I wasn't talking about hate speech, but the fact that you jump to thinking disagreement = hate speech is exactly why I don't talk about things with people unless they're close friends.

[vvvac]

I didn't jump anything, your freedom has limits, you're not free to kill people for example, same thing with speech and that's why it's moderated, grow up.

[sayonaraman]

> words cause pain

more often than not it's the pain of hearing a different opinion. The "hate speech" label turned into "speech I hate" long time ago.

[edmundsauto]

How would you attempt objectively measure something like this? The experiences we, as individuals have, is such a small slice of reality. In order to make broad statements, it's crucial to have a lot of perspective - do you feel your experience is sufficiently representative to make such statements?

[cybernautique]

Honest question: why do I need more perspective than mine to make statements about my experience of the universe? Regardless of how broad or limited a statement I wish to make, the experience I have as an individual is the sum total of my reality. Unless I already value mitigating the pitfalls of undue generalization, why shouldn't I measure the universe by the yard stick of myself?

I'm not defending the original statement. I happen to agree with you, but for different reasons. If it isn't already crucial to me that I have a lot of perspective, then why is it crucial?

[edmundsauto]

The old story where 8 blind people, who have never heard of an elephant, are asked to touch it and describe what they feel. One describes the trunk, and thinks it's like a snake. Another touches the side, and thinks it's a hippo. And so forth.

Our own experiences are so limited, and our brains really like to generalize from very limited data. We are also blind to what we don't see.

Perspective is one way to deal with these limitations.

[cybernautique]

I disagree that this is a representative parable. Putting eight blind men in a room to touch an elephant is a very controlled, very well-defined, problem; the insinuation is that if the blind people could merely collect the correct data, they'd arrive at the correct solution. Very few things in life exhibit these niceties, and the parable absolutely fails to generalize.

What about for the actual day-to-day of our lives? If I do not already value perspective, then why should I?

[silicon2401]

This is a great way to capture my view on the topic. How do we draw the line between hate speech that should be controlled, vs somebody's personal problem? If we call a rich white guy a cracker and he has a breakdown, I don't expect many anti-hate-speech people would mobilize a twitter army to defend him. That to me looks like an issue with "speech I hate" vs "hate speech", as you said.