It's just "my opinion"

It's just my opinion!

How many times have we heard that defence? Usually, although not always, from someone who has just voiced an objectionable viewpoint or questionable statement.

Now ok, we all get to have a right to an opinion, and its been said that opinions are much like arseholes, (in that we all have one...)

But....

How do we counter this "defence" and what is it based in? Well some philosophers from the early 17th century - John Locke and Voltaire - had some thoughts on the issue as did the later philosopher  John Stuart Mill.

Each of them postulated arguments as to what opinion "is" and the reason(s) why we might consider exchange of opinion valid or perhaps best avoided.

This was later built upon by the work of Karl Popper in the latter half of the early 20th century, he suggested via his thoughts on the "open society" that tolerance would actually lead to it own demise.

(one could argue that tolerance is NOT synonymous with pacifist approaches thus we may never reach an absolute state of 0% tolerance and 100% intolerance.. much like the scientific principles of equilibrium and osmosis and indeed Karl did so citing the need to defend tolerance with a measure of intolerance once a critical point was reached.....)

Two well known quotes from Karl are :

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

And

paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

You can read the full article from which these quote were taken Here...

So since we all have an opinion, merely stating what your own one is does not prove it has, nor imbue it with, any validity.  Similarly shutting down the arguments around that opinion reduces our ability to learn, consider and grow as individuals and thus society. 

This "shutting down" isn't limited to the knowledge of specific viewpoints and opinions and whether they be correct, valid or otherwise. In my view it also concerns the methods by which we arrive at those view points. In my video I pose the question "how do we know where the limits of discussion are?" And at what point does opinion become "harmful" in the sense of Mill's definitions and thus worthy of censure? 

If you have a free 15 mins have a cuppa and listen to a few more thoughts...Apologies for the squeaky chair.. i'm gonna sort a new one soon! 

Well food for thought isn't it? 

Again, my own view is that we discover "that point of censure" by means of having the debates in the first place. If we allow a pervasive culture of no platforming to persist over a long enough period of time (say a generation or so) these academic skills are diminished, if not lost, and whilst people may still believe certain viewpoints wrong/right, they may well lack the (well practiced) critical thinking and analysis skills to explain why this is so as direct result. (not to mention the researched evidence base) This skills atrophy would apply equally to political arguments be they conservative or liberal, Scientific argument, ethical debate, you name it. 

Knowledge of how to discuss, critique and argue is as important, if not more so, than the topics being argued about,  so as I said in the video, we need to be mindful of that balance point. The equilibrium of censure, and acceptable argument. 

After all.....not every liberal is left wing nut job, nor every right winger a Nazi. A detractor from LGBT issues is not a necessarily a bigot, and not every cis (non trans) person hostile to trans issues...

Perception and reality are two other concepts that play into this when one considers the truths of any argument. And that's where I'm going next... Nigel warburton's comments on appearance, and reality, be that of arguments or otherwise... 

Strong and Stable or A Weak Leader?

Until then ...keep it real peeps.. 

xSarahx