Posted: Sep 04, 2019 5:48 pm
by felltoearth
tuco wrote:So I am not to address you and you keep addressing me? Do you have any manners at all?

---

Anyway, from the article:

A moral right to express unpopular opinions is not a moral right to express those opinions in a way that silences the voices of others, or puts them in danger of violence. There are those who abuse free speech, who wish others harm, and who roll back efforts to ensure that all citizens are treated with respect. These are facts – and free-speech-crisis mythology is preventing us from confronting them.


I tend to agree. Wishing harm is bad. Putting someone in danger of violence, well, it's also bad, however, how to tell if certain speech puts someone in danger of violence? I admit I do not how to determine that. Practical example:

OlivierK wrote:
tuco wrote:Who decides if it's peaceful or not? That is the only thing I care about.

LGBTQ people are overrepresented as victims of real, not imaginary, violence. Folau's attitudes contribute to that. This bigotry has real, non-peaceful, consequences.

[snip]



and previous conversation.

Of course, LGBTQ people are overrepresented as victims of real, not imaginary, violence but does follow that saying, for example, hell awaits them contributes to it? Puts them in danger? Maybe it does, but how do I know? Certainly not because someone says so, makes an argument. Anything negative about LGBTQ people contributes to violence or just some kind of negative? How does this work?

This is a good start in exploring the concept of language, ideas and violence.