[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.

[apaasim]

It's more a demonstration of how this rule can be used to protect views on the misogynistic side of the spectrum and quietly undermine women and girls. Perhaps, it's how much of this lobbying for male privilege was actually done.

[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.