2) We can still criticise what people believe & the epistemic basis for believing it. I call them 'right to choice' & 'rightness of choice'
-
-
Or they start opposing freedom of speech in relation to an idea because they think supporting it indicates supporting the idea.
-
Ah, for example the opposition to Milo speaking at Berkeley?
-
Yes, or even less dramatic examples. Protests against normal conservatives and radfems.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But if a principle 1 holds *is* the support of others rights, regardless of their own principles, it's simply a self-conflict. Gymnastics?
-
Yes, when people aren't satisfied with saying 'I support your right to do this thing' but feel they must support the thing itself.
-
This is the 'right to choice' and 'rightness of choice' conflation I am talking about.
-
Not just 'I support your right to wear a burqa' but supporting gender-specific modesty codes in 1 culture that you'd normally condemn.
-
"incendiary" speech. Its motivations are simply too questionable. Like climate-denial
. -
I don't because then what is appalling is always decided by the majority. Wrote this after the Milo thing but applicable more widely.pic.twitter.com/oAOl8GIWKA
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Rash generalisation.
-
It would be if said it was a general practice. But its not.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The burqa is feminist and empowering.
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

