[TheBruceHimself]

Well, there is a matter of safety, and not wanting to be harassed for your opinions. Some debates are so heated that an opinion stated either way is going to expose you to potential violence if not, just verbal abuse through various channels. I think even though you should be honest about your opinion, it’s obviously better to avoid that harm so why not be anonymous?

Personally, I’ve also found that stating your opinion, and having it recorded and known to everyone, makes it very hard for you to change your mind. We’re very harsh to people who do change their mind in such circumstances because the first thing we see is a record of them saying the opposite, and then we ask them to explain themselves and judge them like it’s some kind of fault in their character. There are opinions I had when I was 18 years old that I think abhorrent. I don’t want to be associated with them. I’m very happy there’s no record of me having these opinions. I don’t want to have to explain my past like that just to hold the opinions I have in the present. I have found that process never really ends — i’m regularly changing my opinions on beliefs overtime . I wonder what opinions I have now I will look back on with shame. so I try to make sure that I don’t have anything recorded for the end of times under my name just in case I want to distance myself.

[ryandrake]

Yea. The "What's going to be taboo in 30 years" question is a good one. I don't know and I don't have a good answer to that. I personally don't worry about it because it's never occurred to me to walk up close to the line of what's acceptable. I have pretty vanilla opinions.

But, for today, I always wonder when someone says they are going to be harassed for their opinions. Just what opinions are we talking about, here? That's what these discussions always seem to lack: Specific examples of what opinions you want to share that you are afraid to share.

I've always liked Stephen Fry's retort to the old "You can't say anything anymore!" line. If a friend tells you that, pull them aside in private and ask them "What exactly are these things you'd like to say but can't? We're in private now, and I'll give you a judgment-free chance to say what you think you're being prevented from saying. Go ahead!" Nine times out of ten, they still won't say it, because they know it's terrible. They just want to complain that they're somehow the victim of censorship.

[BryantD]

If you’re an Ivy League college professor, it is extremely risky to say that Palestine has a legitimate grievance against Israel. If you’re a small town high school coach, it would be smart to be careful about advocating for trans girls to be able to play on the girls team. You can be punished for opinions on various sides of the political spectrum.

[apaasim]

If you're coaching a girls' team and you advocate that boys who say they are girls should be allowed to play on the team too, then that should be grounds for dismissal from the coaching role, as you'd be disadvantaging the girls on the team that you're supposed to be supporting.

This would be an entirely warranted "punishment for opinions" because of your failure to adequately safeguard young female athletes.

[BryantD]

See? It's just wrong-think, based on appeals to emotion.

[apaasim]

No, in that case it would be a demonstration of how unsuitable that person is for the job.

[BryantD]

Appreciate the demonstration of why Chatham House Rule can protect opinions on the left side of the spectrum. Just to be clear, this is a real live example of someone saying that an individual should be punished for their opinions, separate from their actions.

[ANewFormation]

The reason examples are generally those from the past it's because those from the present are, by definition, controversial and so it mostly would just derail the topic.

It just so happens that controversial views on one era frequently end up being seen as 'right and proper' in another, and vice versa.

Here's a 'safe one' unless you actually think about the implications of what it means I'm saying - forcing people, against their will, to kill (or be killed) is a fundamentally unacceptable violation of human dignity and human rights, that should never be tolerated under any circumstance.

That's probably safe to say, yet now apply it to certain situations and suddenly it becomes tabboo. Of course in the future it will probably be as plainly obviously correct as the notion that slavery is wrong.

[kyleee]

Good example. Also possibly circumcision, eating animals.

[_wire_]

Looking forward:

The right to choose an abortion also extends to the prospective father.

[josephcsible]

> Yea. The "What's going to be taboo in 30 years" question is a good one. I don't know and I don't have a good answer to that. I personally don't worry about it because it's never occurred to me to walk up close to the line of what's acceptable. I have pretty vanilla opinions.

30 years is a long time. Even the most vanilla of opinions can become entirely taboo in less time than that. Take gay marriage as an example. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act became law. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer were among the Congressmen who voted in favor of it, and Bill Clinton signed it. In 2008, Barack Obama said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Even Obama's statement would be taboo today, let alone passing such a bill.

[BryantD]

Not that taboo —- the Speaker of the House declined to apologize for saying same sex marriage would destroy the Republic.

[watwut]

> Even Obama's statement would be taboo today, let alone passing such a bill.

People who literally believe and say that sort of thing are in government and literally running Republican party.

[llamaimperative]

Lots of conflation of verbal response versus physical violence here despite the massive gulf of difference.

You should expect verbal pushback on your shitty ideas. You should expect physical safety nonetheless.

[JumpCrisscross]

> You should expect verbal pushback on your shitty ideas

There is also shitty pushback to decent, or inchoate, ideas. I strongly push back against the notion that there shouldn’t be spaces where one can say something dumb and not be crucified for it.

[llamaimperative]

Again: “crucified.” Say what you actually want, I don’t know how to interpret this idea. I haven’t heard of a crucifixion in recent times if I’m being honest.

[blitzar]

crucify /ˈkruːsɪfʌɪ/ verb past tense: crucified; past participle: crucified

1. put (someone) to death by nailing or binding them to a cross, especially as an ancient punishment. "two thieves were crucified with Jesus"

2. INFORMAL criticize (someone) severely and unrelentingly. "our fans would crucify us if we lost"

[SanjayMehta]

ISIS crucified a number of people as recently as 2014.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-crucifies-11-christi...

[llamaimperative]

See, what an excellent contrast between actual crucifixion and simply someone saying your ideas are bad and socially ostracizing you.

[watwut]

It is figurative speech. It is valid use of an English language.

[llamaimperative]

Right and it means “don’t criticize when I say stupid things,” which is how the marketplace of ideas works.

[SoftTalker]

It’s less a real problem than you think. For example lots of politicians including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were on the record as not supporting gay marriage and later said that their position on the matter had evolved.