^Well you brought up a lot of points there which I’ll try to respond below. Before I start though I thought I should establish the fact that I’m a straight white male and I hope that my sexual orientation, skin colour, and gender doesn’t invalidate my opinions and arguments in any way
... are a dummy-spit by people when their feelings aren't sufficiently coddled in an argument that they are losing.
I would argue that it’s usually the other way around and that many people use political correctness as a ‘shield’ when their beliefs are challenged.
...on culturally significant issues such as climate change, diversity, LGBTI rights, (internationally) abortion and so forth, there is usually a side arguing out bothrespect and conformity to facts, and one arguing out of a bigoted, emotional response.
I agree that these are important issues in our society - however one, these issues are debatable and therefore there is no “universal set of facts” that clearly spells out what’s right or wrong; and two, both sides are capable of being respectful or bigoted and emotional in debate, and it is biased and quite frankly wrong to say that there is the “respectful side” and the “bigoted side”.
The rise of far-right provacateurs such as Milo, Jordan Peterson, Gavin McInnes and, yes, Donald Trump is testament to the fact that when you're White and right-wing, you can say anything irrespective of factual accuracy.
This is unrelated to the topic. But anyway - plenty of people from both the left and the right have made outrageous claims without factual accuracy. Again, it is biased and emotional to simply label it as something belonging to “white people” or “right wingers”.
One thing that is important when "debates" do occur is that they are factually accurate.
Good point. However, what if the debate is centred around a topic that is arbitrary in terms of what is right and wrong?
... people you are sharing this space with likely have a lived experience that includes persecution, harassment and/or oppression they were subjected to on the basis of some characteristic that is the subject of your "debate".
I agree with the point raised - but again in cases where one’s arguments come off as personal attacks, they should be dealt with individually rather than shutting down the entire debate, effectively leaving no room for discussion.
Someone being shouted down if they say "teh gays are unnatural", "abortion is murder" or "transgenderism [sic] is a delusion" is being so because, yes, (a) they are factually incorrect; but (b) they have breached their obligation as someone sharing that communal space.
Again, this is not what this thread is about, however I would personally disagree with your statement on the fact that “abortion is not murder” - and I do have a personal anecdote, just like what you said above, that some people have personal experiences with topics that are being discussed. I personally believe that it is factually incorrect to say that abortion is
not murder.
Due to my personal experience, does that grant me the right to label your statement “abortion is murder is factually incorrect” as a personal attack?
Someone was uninformed, unwilling to learn and spouted nonsense.
Again this could be said about both sides of the debate.
Essentially, it's up to society to decide what speech it deems so harmful or dangerous that it should not be allowed.
I thought you just said that it should be up to whether or not a statement was
factually correct??
Society as a whole mostly make decisions based on emotion.
Would love to hear your response, and any opinions anyone else have.