To think not all opinions deserve respect?

[SmartDisagreement]

The internet has convinced people that every view is valid. Some opinions are uninformed, harmful or downright stupid.

AIBU?

I agree.

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to believe that "democracy" means that their views should never be criticised.

Every person has the right to be treated within the law and with dignity and humanity. Opinions can and should be challenged; if yours is not robust enough to stand up to that challenge, you should probably keep it to yourself (or educate yourself)

I think people confuse respecting the right to have and express an opinion, with the right for what they are saying (and indeed for them) to be respected.

I will defend to the death your right to hold an opinion that does not cause harm to others. I will also feel at liberty to tell you if it is spectacularly stupid, or based on a complete misunderstanding of the evidence.

So as long as you agree with it then
Sounds like Nazi Germany or China or N Korea

Liberals are very liberal until someone has a different opinion to themselves

Exactly!

What?

this poster is defending the right of people to have opinions that are not harmful, whether they agree with them or not! Literally the opposite of what you think is being said!

The problem is that saying "your opinion is wrong and doesn't deserve discussion" can be used as a way of shutting down debate. Eg I've heard trans rights activists use this phrase to GC people.

That's what I thought, I'm confused by what was said that is so offensive.

I would argue that people have a right to hold harmful opinions, and we should fight for their right to do so, but opinions are not actions. They cannot cause harm; they can offend, but I don't think people have the right not to be offended.

I don't agree with anti abortion protests, but I would absolutely fight for someone's right to hold one, just don't expect me not to challenge it or start a counter-protest.

Flat earthers are ignorant and stupid. That's just my decree opinion.

Maybe reread.

This sounds rather like what the OP is criticising.... "I'm allowed to think whatever I want, and you're disrespecting my opinion if you point out I'm wrong and objectionable".

So what would be your approach to someone voicing an opinion you considered harmful? Sit there in silence rather than disagree? You were certainly quick enough to jump in with your disagreement with PP, with a nice bit of exaggeration and hyperbole thrown in to misrepresent what she said.
So how is your approach different exactly?

They CAN cause harm though, someone who is vulnerable may be swayed by extreme opinions or do something harmful to themselves. People with harmful opinions often target those who are vulnerable eg extremists, organisations like Charlie Kirks.

So anti abortion protests are fine? When someone extremely vulnerable is potentially making the most difficult decision of their lives are then faced with abuse and inflammatory language from these people. I just dont think this is harmless.

Not sure there is an answer, although luckily in the above situation it is now not allowed to protest near a clinic.

I will defend "to the death..." 🤔

Don't think so 🙄

Protests near clinics should not be allowed, I agree, and probably should have made that clear, but they should be allowed.

Ditto protests about the military should be allowed, but a military funeral is not the place for them, and those who choose to take part in things like that should be removed.

The first part of your post is exactly why people should be allowed to hold and challenge opinions. For those who agree with the likes of Kirk, opposing opinions are harmful; if we cannot hold opinions that are "wrong," what happens when someone with an opinion we disagree with gains power?

We have to be able to challenge it, and to be allowed to challenge it means we need to be allowed to hold and express opposing opinions, no matter how unsavoury our opponents might find them.

Yep, @surreygirly appears to have missed the whole point of the thread. Her post is actually a perfect illustration of exactly the kind of thing that the OP is highlighting.

Pointing out to someone that their views are stupid and/or that they have misunderstood the evidence while defending their right to hold such stupid and incorrect views really isn't like Nazi Germany or North Korea. Not remotely.

The problem is that some people mistakenly seem to believe that democracy means that we need to treat all views as having equal merit. That is not the case.

I think there's a line where the right to express an opinion, mount a campaign, stage a protest crosses into harm to others. Where that line is drawn will often be a matter of opinion in itself. For example, I support the right for pro life campaigners to protest. I don't support them in targeting their campaigning to individual women on their way to access terminations. Because that moves from being a political action to one of personal harassment.
I support the rights of people to say that all men named Derek are insufferable bores. I don't support their right to urge people to give every man named Derek they meet a punch in the face. Because that moves from being rather stupid stereotyping to incitement to violence.

I don’t mind people having different opinions from me but I don’t have to respect them if I think they’re harmful.

Unfortunately these days it’s almost impossible to have a nuanced, reasonable debate about anything, especially on the internet, and I’m probably just as guilty of that as everyone else.

It depends how you’re defining respect. It doesn’t necessarily mean considering all opinions to be equally valid or to have merit. I think most opinions are deserving of respectful engagement and challenge: of asking somebody “why do you think that?” and listening to their answer, rather than immediately deciding to tell somebody that they are stupid or ignorant or bigoted because you disagree. Many abhorrent and harmful viewpoints develop because they haven’t been afforded that respectful engagement, and the people who hold them end up with the only platform where they can express or discuss an opinion being among others who feel exactly the same way, rather than in a theatre where they can hear other opinions, challenge and be challenged.

I don't disagree overall but its very hard to police that line I think. Eg if someone posts on MN asking for support re a termination and everyone piles on telling them it is murder etc etc, they are just expressing an opinion but I do think its harmful. Its not necessarily harassment either. Those posters havent technically done anything wrong, and actually who am I to say they are wrong 🤷‍♀️

Your opinions sre yours and valid to you. That doesn't mean you’re always right.

There’s room for different opinions.

Not much of it matters anyway. Governments do as they choose.

100%, but all I am really saying is that opinions can still be harmful though, just because they arent actions they can still cause harm. I dont believe there will ever be a time where people can't hold opinions publicly though.

Yes, because that was the problem with Nazi germany - insisting people had the right to hold their own opinions, even if you personally thought they were stupid.
Of course you can call opinions stupid without being a Nazi! Do you really think someone is a Nazi just because they argue against an opinion of yours?