I mean, you are posting this in a hugbox forum where overtly suggesting that certain opinions don’t have merit or rigor is forbidden because it hurts peoples fee-fees. You, too, participate in society.
Some say taping aquarium rocks to your cables improves the sound, some say it’s rubbish, let’s have a discussion and if you are really so sure about your ideas I’m sure you can refute the idea right? Let’s have a debate!
(And now just continue refuting it every day for the rest of your life…)
https://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
https://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm
https://i.imgur.com/296fTdq.jpg
Effectively that’s outlawing the opinion of “no that’s dumb, you’re dumb for suggesting that”, which is unfortunately rather a necessary one, science doesn’t work if everyone has to treat the idea that the moon is cheese with equal weight. At some point you can believe whatever you want but the scientific discourse doesn’t have to include you, and people don’t grow if they’re not told their opinions are wrong and objectively incorrect from time to time. The moon is not made of cheese and unless you got a real good reason then you’re dumb for suggesting it, and you’re worsening the discourse for all of us too by even entertaining it. Discourse does not benefit from entertaining facially outlandish ideas without some evidentiary backing etc just “for the sake of discussion”.
At some level, enforced politeness and forced equality-of-merit for all opinions is a thought-terminating cliche and becomes destructive to discourse. It’s a little bizarre how people love having legislated “truth in the middle” outcomes to discourse. The truth often is objectively not in the middle and it worsens the discourse to pretend it is.
(Same for the way this forum treats hanlon’s razor tbh. 99% of the time when people invoke it, it’s a handwave to excuse some pretty conveniently malice or self-interest. That’s effectively using it as a thought-terminating cliche. Any time profit or PR spokespeople are involved you should never invoke it, because malice is indistinguishable from profit-seeking in most circumstances etc.)
The same is true of certain openly callous and cruel perspectives etc. It’s not just factual perspectives that can be destructive and noxious if tolerated as though they held rigor and merit, and extreme indifference etc is just as toxic as wishing harm directly etc. Just because you don’t care about litter, or masking during a pandemic, or climate change, doesn’t mean the rest of society isn’t going to set expectations etc, and “I guess you’ll have to die then” is not exactly sympathetic, but it’s uncouth to point out the callousness here. And that is, itself, an editorial lean towards the legitimacy and integrity of such positions. You’re treating “I don’t want to die” with the same weight as “I guess you’ll have to die for me”, and tutting when people get upset about it.
