Chapter six talks about public discourse ethics, and ideas such as keeping the public a safe place for discourse, and I entirely agree: to a point.
I genuinely, with all my heart, believe that we should keep public spaces a safe place for us to be who we are, to talk, to have disagreements and to hopefully come to some manner of conclusion that makes most parties happy. The only way we can really do that is to keep the public safe so we can keep dialogue open. That may mean things like when talking about sexual assault or other issues that may trigger PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) is to put trigger warnings on things, and coming up with ground rules for discussing sensitive issues.
However- my big thing, can we go too far in trying to make the public a safe place for discourse? If we put too many rules on discourse, try to make it too safe for too many people, is it possible to stifle it?
You pose a very important question pertaining to discourse in the public arena. In my opinion it is detrimental to overly regulate discourse, as it may restrict people from saying everything that they truly want to. Although it is important for people to feel safe within dialogue, it is often difficult and at times impossible to have public discourse that does not offend someone. There are always going to be views and beliefs that differ among one another, and it is crucial for people to learn how to navigate through conflict of opinion. This has become very relevant in today's society, where being politically correct is something that has become so strong, that many people will not say what they truly believe in fear that they might offend someone. Public discourse should be a safe place overall, but navigating through the differences in thoughts and ideas is what helps give it a greater meaning.
ReplyDelete