It seems to me a repeating pattern that once freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason, it will have unintended consequences.

Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with, regardless of whether the original implementer had good intentions.

As such I’m personally very averse to restrictions. I’ve thought about the question a fair bit – there isn’t a clear cut or obvious line to draw.

Please elaborate and motivate your answer. I’m genuinely curious about getting some fresh perspectives.

  • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Calling somebody a racist or sexist hurts their feelings, should that be allowed?

    Calling somebody out publicly can hurt their livelihood and thus ability to get things like medical care, should that be allowed?

    • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Ah, we finally have the tolerance paradox again. Tolerating intolerance does not increase the total amount of tolerance. If someone breaks the social contract to tolerate everyone he can not plead himself on the contract, because he broke the contract first.