So, I'm sure this post is commentary on, if not a specific user or set of users, some of the interactions that have gone on around here recently.

_

Now that I've said that, since some people are confused, I'd like to make it clear that the rest of this post, while it will discuss things like racism and inflammatory dialogue, is in no way a direct or indirect reference or attempt to "throw shade" or "blame" any user or set of users. From here on out we are having a discussion about the text in Q's post, which suggests that unpopular opinions are more valid than popular ones. Yes, I will use racism as my first example because it seems relevant. No, I do not have little mental labels for you assholes in my head: "racist," "not racist." No, I actually do not really care about you or calling you out or continuing an ugly discussion. So stop being self-obsessed and let it go.

_

The thing that strikes me about your post, Q, is that it's completely unclear which opinion is perceived as the popular opinion, and which is not. I feel an argument could be made that racism is the popular opinion (look at the incidence of racism that occurs across America in the present day). I feel like an argument could be made that equality is the popular opinion because we are human beings and we are optimists and we like to believe we are better than that.

I think it is truly optimistic to believe that equal rights are the popular opinion. There are far too many discussions about "Well but I'm just not naturally attracted to an entire race of people, that's just my preference, and it's perfectly okay for me to say that I will never find anyone attractive because they happen to have a certain skin tone," and "What about male-on-male violence though? No one ever talks about that" and so on. If equal rights were the popular opinion in America I would really think we would stop arguing so much about birth control. Or affirmative action, or...well, yeah, I can go on.

I would absolutely echo tla's sentiment that this post reminds me of Reddit's original approach to content. "We aren't responsible for the hate speech that sprouts around our website because it's free speech and everyone has the right to that." The thing is Reddit has clearly capitulated on that point and I don't think that anyone really misses the unpopular dialogues of places like /fatpeoplehate or thinks that the loss of such subtracts any value from the website.

Sure - everyone has a right to say whatever they want and that's a great thing about America, that no one will get killed by the government for a news article or what-have-you. That doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to subject themselves to the unpopular ramblings of others - the right to speak does not translate to some sort of inherent value in what is said. The unpopularity of an opinion does not relate in any way to whether it is a good one, a poisonous one, or other.

On hubski, anti-vax opinions would be unpopular speech. But they aren't in some parts of the greater U.S. clearly. This is an opinion that can actually cause harm not only to one's own children but others. Anti-vaxxers can cause health crises. A person is allowed to say this opinion; the right to do so is the extent of free speech, and the extent of any protection thereof. Should these anti-vax statements not be rebutted because the rebuttal is popularly accepted as factual and grounded? So we should allow blatantly false and potentially harmful information to go not only said, but unchallenged? What of the lurker who reads the opinion, doesn't have much knowledge about the subject, doesn't see any rebuttal, and accepts this opinion as gospel because they do not know better?

What is popular speech, really? What prevents one day's popular speech from becoming the next day's unpopular speech - certainly, saying that because it is popular it needs no defense or much discussion would not do that.

I am just thinking about propaganda and campaigns and how political changes can suddenly make previously accepted topics more controversial or forbidden. Of course, I am imagining a slightly more aggressive political state than I like to think America has in practice.

But really I am also thinking about kids and kids interacting with what they see online. How if no one ever protected the popular opinion by stating it and reinforcing it, while unpopular opinions went free of scrutiny or moderation because they somehow deserved more "protection," it'd be very easy for kids to glom on to the shitty shit and take it all in.

I think there is not only no obligation to tolerate hateful opinions but yes, an obligation to speak against them. I guess that makes me an activist. But to me, especially in a small community like Hubski which is supposed to be a "real community" where we all know each other and have relationships and shit, my silence is not "allowing unpopular opinions their due," it is "condonement," and there are things I will not condone.

I would speak up if my friends said these things and I would stop being friends with them if they held truly virulent opinions. I guess virulent opinions probably quality as "unpopular."

Aren't we supposed to be friends, Hubski? Isn't that what makes this website special? Or am I just supposed to give you an audience - not only free speech but heard speech - but because you can say whatever you want? Why do you have to say it here and what right is it that protects that?

It is unpopular to me to suggest some free speech is more valid than others. States like "popular" and "unpopular" are easily changeable and dependent upon context. I do not think it is the best measure of kinds of speech.

What about "speech that is harmful to others" vs "speech that is not"? I mean, no matter what i propose we are going to realize that these are nebulous decisions and people will argue what they mean and where the boundaries lie. Maybe it's silly to differentiate like this.

To "put up and shut up" - to tolerate - is to say the behavior exhibited is okay. I won't say that about hate speech.