Should We Actually Support Differences In Opinion?

[GraceRandolph]

It seems like society at large has always pushed for the idea of diversity in opinion, and letting different viewpoints "debate" them out. I used to support this, but I think it's a hugely flawed premise. By allowing "diversity of opinion" I believe we have largely allowed fringe reactionary groups to hijack discussions and push for more mainstream tolerance of bigoted and far-right beliefs. The truth is that people dealing with the same sets of facts and experiences shouldn't be coming to wildly different conclusions. Is supporting differences in opinion even worth it in the end?

[Tropez]

No. It’s called paradox of tolerance. If a tolerant society accepts all opinions, then the intolerant will take over that society. So a society has to be intolerant to remove intolerance. 

[TouchinFree]

I've always wondered the same. It is a fine line. However I think the term "freedom of speech" contradicts your last statement " Is supporting differences of opinion worth it". Well if we don't support that then are we really free after all? I mean I disagree with so many concepts that are pushed upon us in the mainstream media and at the same time I disagree with some of my own family's views ( ones I was taught growing up) because they may seem fake and forced. 

 

Do I have to agree and follow a certain religion/concept/ideology? Soon we'll stop speaking to each other in order not to offend. For example, Jordan Peterson in my opinion has great takes on life and some great advice. However I do disagree with some of his theories/approaches as well. But I find it to be strange how mainstream media wants to take him down by all means. Like why can't we have both sides of the spectrum to take the positives of each and not call it a certain ideology? Even Sigmund Freud and great thinkers, Plato , Socrates which were once upon a time denounced and cast out/prosecuted because of their views which were seen "abnormal". 

 

I personally love to listen to opinions/views that challenge what I stand for. 

[worldwide angel]

OP brought up strong points

 

we also need to be honest / better about pointing out good faith and

conversely bad faith arguments. a lot of the latter are hidden behind

the word "opinion"

[elevate]

It's important to have discussions and to elucidate when possible, but there has to be a limit to the "both sides" narrative or difference of opinion in general. It seems like common sense, but it's profitable for both mainstream and social media to continue discord. 

 

A quick way to notice how ridiculous complete free speech is would be thinking about how countries around Germany (and the country itself) handled Hitler's rise to power. Even though his party destroyed Germany's democracy, they were democratically elected, in part because they used Jews and other minorities as scapegoats for Germany's economic problems at the time. Should Germans have tolerated that misinformation? Well, enough of them did initially. 

[Into The Void]

Yes we live in a free world 

[byzantium]

The rule of thumb is if the opinion is actively promoting something harmful and dangerous, then it should not be respected.  
 

Diversity of opinion is a nice aspiration, but should never be a guise hostility and harm.

[fauxtography]

No one is owed anything - respect or support.

 

So no! I will not respect other opinions, just like I wouldn't expect mine to respected by the "other side."

[RunUpDoneUp]

No, society only pushed for thin in rhetoric but the prominence of religion throughout history and the various purges carried out in god/s' name tells us differently.

 

People have never believed this in practice, nor should they when beliefs can be demonstrably harmful in practice.

 

We should support the ones that are demonstrably beneficial to wellbeing for all rather than the few.

[Mike91]

Depends on what the person is saying. I'm for free speech, but you have to realize that what you say will come under scrutiny. That's always happened throughout history, it's just much easier to amplify it now. Racist and homophobic **** should never be tolerated. Actively attempting to harm individuals through words and propaganda should be called out and criticized.

 

That's not to say that all differing opinions on things like race, etc shouldn't be allowed. It ultimately comes down to intention. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Mike91

[VOSS]

I think the idea that society at large should silence viewpoints falling out of an acceptable range is quite chilling

[Delirious]

3 hours ago, Insanity said:

Yes we live in a free world 

yes.

[MadonnasBoyfriend]

It's not in style to express youself anymore. Even on this site you are punished for not acting like everyone else and having a difference of opinion. I'd say we should go back to that way we were before as a society. I can't belive you want everyone to share a brain and have the same thoughts. Cult leader mentality... 😒

Edited February 9, 2023 by MadonnasBoyfriend

[Into The Void]

3 hours ago, MadonnasBoyfriend said:

It's not in style to express youself anymore. Even on this site you are punished for not acting like everyone else and having a difference of opinion. I'd say we should go back to that way we were before as a society. I can't belive you want everyone to share a brain and have the same thoughts. Cult leader mentality... 😒

Well said

[Specter]

A lot of these conversations unfortunately center what is a fallacy: that, since opinions are subjective, you can simply "agree to disagree" when a "compromise" isn't possible. (To be clear, you can, but not on fundamental issues.)

 

People colloquially use "opinions" to mask harmful and flat-out dangerous rhetoric, and we shouldn't platform this, no. 

 

-"In my opinion, gay people should be allowed to marry."

-"In my opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman (and therefore I will back legislation that is anti-gay marriage)"

 

 What's the middle ground here? How is the second opinion valid, or worth of entertaining, or indeed, even a mere "difference" in opinion? A personal gripe of mine is when people use the word opinion to then champion for legal recourse that ACTIVELY harms communities. Your "it's okay bro let's just agree to disagree" would perhaps work if you were not trying to alter people's material reality via laws and legislation.

 

And if this is more about free speech absolutism, that is a broader, more nuanced conversation. In a nutshell you /always/ sign an implicit ToS with any social media service you join; you violate it? Out. Simple. And throughout history, free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

[family.guy123]

Yes! Everybody thinks that they’re right/the good guys. You’ll find out what you were once you get sent to either hell or heaven.

[harwee]

No.
95% of "opinions" are trash and there's only 24 hours in a day.

Before the internet, not every single individual broadcast their "opinions”.
Now every random have a say about every issue they barely understand nor care about simply cause they have a phone or laptop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by harwee

[Horizon Flame]

The word you’re looking for is acknowledge. You don’t have to support anything but you can acknowledge other points of view. 

[shookspeare]

the responses in this thread are insane lol

[Bethenny Frankel]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:17 PM, TouchinFree said:

I've always wondered the same. It is a fine line. However I think the term "freedom of speech" contradicts your last statement " Is supporting differences of opinion worth it". Well if we don't support that then are we really free after all? I mean I disagree with so many concepts that are pushed upon us in the mainstream media and at the same time I disagree with some of my own family's views ( ones I was taught growing up) because they may seem fake and forced. 

 

Do I have to agree and follow a certain religion/concept/ideology? Soon we'll stop speaking to each other in order not to offend. For example, Jordan Peterson in my opinion has great takes on life and some great advice. However I do disagree with some of his theories/approaches as well. But I find it to be strange how mainstream media wants to take him down by all means. Like why can't we have both sides of the spectrum to take the positives of each and not call it a certain ideology? Even Sigmund Freud and great thinkers, Plato , Socrates which were once upon a time denounced and cast out/prosecuted because of their views which were seen "abnormal". 

 

I personally love to listen to opinions/views that challenge what I stand for. 

I stopped reading after you PRAISED Jordan Peterson like what?

[Lemonjuice]

The number of people supporting the core concept of fascism in this thread is Disgusting. 

[Chaos Angel]

 

On 2/8/2023 at 5:53 PM, GraceRandolph said:

The truth is that people dealing with the same sets of facts and experiences shouldn't be coming to wildly different conclusions.

I disagree with this. This is not how the world works. Everyone’s lived experiences are different and shape their view on the world, whether they think logically/emotionally, what their priorities are, etc. We are not to ignore this, and everyone’s voice should be heard. Refusal to listen says more about the listener’s ignorance than the person saying something they don’t like.

[A.R.L]

Yes, as long as there’s no violence, harassment or abuse.

[Bang Up]

Of course, but some people don't understand the difference between mis/disinformation and an opinion. No, your lies should not be supported and accepted, but your opinion can be.