Yargo wrote a great response[1] to my previous post[2] on 
discrimination, pointing out that in some cases ideas and 
viewpoints might not be changeable -- and that physical 
appearances might be. That's fair and really got me thinking 
about my own biases and preconceptions. In the end, I came 
to the conclusion that I prefer civil debate involving 
constructive criticism over ridicule. Commentary on 
appearances rarely involves the former. Even when it does 
involve what might be construed as constructive criticism at 
a superficial level, it's rarely intended that way -- and 
often has the effect of humiliating the subject.

Then again, perhaps the same can often be said of the 
criticism of ideas, and I'll be watching for that more often 
now.

I'm also interested in the preference for libertarian 
freedoms. I hear it stated a lot online, and I agree that 
freedom of speech is absolutely essential to constitutional 
democracies. But I don't believe that freedom of speech 
includes freedom from all consequences whatsoever.

Should there be limits on free speech? I don't think so. 
There are real problems with determining who sets the limits 
and for what reasons. But there should be consequences for 
harmful malicious acts, whether they are the product of 
speech or otherwise. It shouldn't matter whether the acts 
are the product of speech or some physical action. For 
example, in the case mentioned in the National Post[3], it 
was alleged that the comedian's comments did actual harm to 
the child. While we should be free to state our opinions, we 
should also bear responsibility when it is proven that we 
have used that freedom to cause harm to others. That's a 
fine line to walk -- for both authorities and regulated 
populations -- and I guess that's why these kinds of issues 
become so controversial.

Addendum:

Yargo wrote in his post:

"But then, if I think my opponent simply is dumb and not
able to see The Truth, I should assume they did not choose
their opinion, but it was forced upon them by their mental
inability, and therefore it qualifies for the same 
'protection' as their appearance."

Since I'm sure that the capitalization of 'The Truth' was 
meant to undercut the concept of absolute truth, I don't 
think it's necessary to address that subject. The more 
pressing issue is that logically, I know that it _must_be_ 
_true_ that some people are mentally incapable of developing 
a reasoned opinion of their own. But when I begin to follow 
the many implications of that statement, I find myself 
straying into mental territory that I know was once occupied 
by eugenicists.

Perhaps there are truths that are best pushed to the 
peripheries of consciousness.


[1] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space/0/~yargo/clog/yr-joking-about-others.txt

[2] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space/0/~visiblink/phlog/20190117

[3] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-comic-mike-ward-in-court-defending-joke-about-disabled-singer