[andirk]

This is where a lot of voices on Twitter feel they're being marginalized because their hate speech isn't accepted which is odd to them because in private, it is accepted. Similarly, saying "Joe Rogan" in certain holier-than-thou circles will get you banished. Point is that public discourse is often policed by the most offensive and the most sensitive, but still speak your mind, and always with respect to those in the forum.

[nicbou]

If you criticise someone for liking Joe Rogan, you have to explain why and convince them. You can’t dunk on them and get cheered by your side automatically. You have to deal with the other person’s perception of you, and listen to their rebuttal. This makes people a lot less intense.

[SpeedilyDamage]

You have no obligation to explain yourself to anyone, I have no earthly idea why you think you do.

Conversely, others have no obligation to respect your opinions.

[TheCapeGreek]

Correct, you aren't obligated to explain anything to anyone. If you want your opinion/idea/statements to be taken seriously however, you have to back them up and can't just speak absolutes into a void.

[SpeedilyDamage]

This is in no way true, and you can see how untrue it is by observing any popular "alt" speaker for a short period of time.

In fact, explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility to large swaths of people, as you'll have become boring and confusing.

[mlb893]

I disagree on your conclusion. I think there are certain ways of explaining your point of view amongst an ambiguous crowd.

Monologues can easily be boring. They are hard to put together for most people and you have to have implied consent from the crowd to be monologued. People don't like to be forced to be polite to listen to anyone for more than 30 seconds.

But there are certain ways of conversing where you have time to explore deeper. Unfortunately, not everyone is open to conversation for the sake of argument.

[wadd1e]

I think you and the person you're replying to just have different ideas of what you mean by "people". I think they'd be right in saying you can't speak absolutes and get away with it in a group of curious and non-impressionable people who will challenge what you have to say and will try to understand your POV too, but you're also right in saying there's groups of people where the same strategy will backfire.

[ponow]

It is true, just incomplete. Preaching to the converted doesn't require this evidence and argument, but _in general_ you need that capability. If you want popularity you have to customize your pitch to the audience.

[SpeedilyDamage]

Consider for a moment how nobody here really has done any amount of evidence providing or really arguing; we’re simply stating things at one another.

I posit this is okay, as I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway!

Most of the internet makes a lot more sense if you stop thinking of it as a place to argue, and start thinking of it as a place to exchange ideas.

You give me an idea, and I’ll mull it over myself, research it myself, and confirm/adopt it or refute it myself.

None of this requires an argument or evidence, just the idea, and that’s how most people use the Internet.

[mlb893]

I think that the best way of speaking about these things is not to refer to Joe Rogan but to speak ideas irrespective of who is behind. Some have a certain reaction when AOC is mentioned while others have the same reaction regarding Rogan.

If you are in those circles, speak of ideas, not people.

[honkler]

speech i dont like is hate speech