The dilemma is a man with violent speech might cause violence but a man who is not allowed to speak may become violent 🤔.
My principle is to allow the fostering of multiple viewpoints, and ensue discussion so more healthy consensuses can be reached, if we only drive narratives then no discussions, solutions, or improvements are reached.
Even if the current solution/narrative is fine there could perhaps be a better solution that benefits more people en masse, or results in a bigger net gain.
It's free speech not free tolerance.
If your free speech annoys me I will respond with my free speech and potentially my right to bear arms 🇺🇲
Both should go hand in hand when legitimate issues are being discussed.
Disputes shouldn't escalate to violence, however I understand that some might.
I believe that it is more ideal for society to be cooperative with one another, the primary issue why society has become so contentious is because multiple groups are forced to interact with one another.
I think while different values, and beliefs are ok, and I would say I ascribe to classically liberal principles, I also understand that having different groups interact with one another could lead to conflict.
It is ideal for groups to be seperate generally.
I think free speech worked better when we had duels. Put up or shut up.
