

I don’t think I agree if I read this correctly. I’ll specific as to how I understand it.
If I have opinion a, and that’s the majority opinion, and any other opinion gets censored, I think I’m fine with that. Hard disagree. I wanna expose myself to nuance and other opinions. Of course there’s a time and place when people hate you for nuance and specific opinions but censorship implies a legal framework and enforcement. Sure, there’s a lot of majority opinions I hold but I don’t want other opinions to get censored or punished on most topics. I wanna hear and learn new things.
Example of something I want censorship on: if someone just repeats NS dog whistles in a clear attempt to instigate, I think it might be good to censored them / punish them in some way. Not in a murderer way, but in a “do you know what you’re saying and can you grasp what it means?” way.
Example of something I don’t want censorship on: opinions political or societal systems. In fact I love discussing different ones, what they bring to the table, how they worked in practice and how they are bad so we can tweak them. On fact I invite people to tell me how capitalism itself is awesome, so we can discuss what we feel needs to be part of a healthy society and maybe we come up with novel ideas.
I guess if you wanna say “there’s some censorship that’s good” I might actually agree but that’s way more of a narrow statement than what you’re saying here.




Have you considered that most people like an accurate reflection of how people think about your opinion? They don’t want you to shut up, they want you to understand your opinion is unpopular and confront you with that.
There’s a big difference between an opinion that’s unpopular and an opinion that’s actively damaging or inciting. One is worth a discussion, the other is actively stifling discussion in various ways.