Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free speech. I know that in a thread I commented on someone assumed I was saying the same. I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. And you are correct that speech has consequences; it can make you feel like you are walking on air and can hurt more than…
> I think what he is saying is that we can have a respectful open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. We can. You and I are probably about to do it. My point is simply that there often are people--their perception being their reality--for whom snap judgments and an invective response is the reasonable, if not respectful response to others' speech. Note, for much of human history (…
Discussion is a two way street. It involves one talking and another responding. What I am advocating is for honest, open discussion. All I said was that we can have a discussion without judgment. You and I may not agree on something but I am not going to judge you for having an opinion that may be different from my own.
>We have to learn to listen without judging. "Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do."
And hence the open discussion. To me, and maybe I see things with rose colored glasses, but honest entails truthful which could involved heated, passionate, calm, even frenzied discussion. It could involve telling me I am wrong, it could involve agreeing. That allows us to understand where each other is coming from and could involve me or you having a change in position. I am in no way saying I have control over your response or feelings about my stance just as you have no control over my interpretation of yours.
>Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and your response was "that this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so.....But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim."
I think you have wholly misunderstood my statement. I welcome your response, in whatever form you may find appropriate. What I said was that at the end of the day (after the discussion, which may sometimes be heated as passionate discussions sometimes are), we may have to face facts and that may be that you and I (as your example showed) may stand on opposite sides of the issue. We have openly discussed the issue.
You are correct that change is difficult. Nobody is advocating that a listener must be respectful of an idea they find abhorrent as you stated. I am simply saying that after the discussion is over, I am simply saying that response to the idea that is disrespectful is wholly different than slurs etc that are disrespectful or degrading to the person on the opposite side. I have spent my career fighting for the rights of marginalized persons (the disabled) but my experience is that you gain more ground from listening, responding, and then working to find common ground in order to make some progress. And, yes, sometimes that common ground is the tiniest of slivers, but once it is found, change can occur. If I stay on my side of the street and you on yours, hurling words across the void gets neither of us closer to a better place. YMMV.