|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Can we all agree the sentiment of the letter is one to which any advanced society ought to aspire?
|
I'm not sure what "the sentiment of the letter" is, so let's be more concrete.
Quote:
What Are You Fighting About?
Free speech defenders cast their argument as upholding first principles, but it’s not. A substantial majority of Americans agree that:
1) The government should not use state power to punish people for expressing their opinions, especially opinions about the government.
2) In general, influential private actors — employers, media outlets, universities, crowds, etc. — should not use their power to punish people for expression, whether or not they agree with the substance.
3) Some expressions are beyond the pale, and private actors should use their power to reduce the space in which those expressions are socially acceptable.
While both sides of this debate cast it in sweeping, sometimes civilizational terms, the entire thing takes place within point three: Which expressions should be beyond the pale, and how should private actors punish transgressions?
|
Is there anything here you disagree with?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
