On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

Because the "cancel culture" thing doesn't work? The whole concept is nearly a complete fabrication. It's about 20% anecdotes of college kids saying dumb things mixed with 80% paranoia fueled by the conservative media. No one actually gets cancelled, certainly not the white republican men we're talking about constantly yelling (loudly, in a rather, let's say "unsuppressed" manner) about their Free Speech rights.

Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an "ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden.

If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking about coercion or fraud.

> when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process

No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws.

> I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.

I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you think are wrong.

Understanding how and why that can happen is important for historical context of these movements, and understanding what is happening in our country now.

We could use some more of that.

>> me: What is your basis for saying this?

> you: I don’t need a basis other than feelings now.

Of course your feelings and experiences matter. However, if you want to (a) have a deeper conversation; (b) help others understand where you are coming from; or (c) possibly convince other people, I suggest you try to unpack your experience.

> However my feeling are invalid because they are not the currently beloved norms.

If I interpret this literally: This is not true. Of course your feelings are valid.

If I interpret it this as sarcasm: I encourage you to rephrase your point; sarcasm is not useful if you want to engage in discussion.

My tentative impression, so far:

1. You seem currently seem focused on a narrow mental framing of this issue. You seem to fixate on a particular part of the debate without much rigor or reflection.

2. I have not seen much of a willingness or skill to engage on a deeper level.

3. It appears to me that you are using HN to vent. Keep in mind that venting or mischaracterizing others does not suit the audience here.

I'm not asking you to change your experience, values, or goals. I'm asking you to put an effort to engage and listen. I'm also asking you to use your strong feelings about the issue to encourage a deeper investigation into the situation; the nuances. At the very least, you can improve on how you present your experience, arguments, philosophy, etc.