Should people apologize for their opinions?

[Cekoviu]

The systematic European white patriarchy has created a system of oppression that to this day places women and people of color on the same level as dogs. The only real solution is to create a mandatory reeducation system for whites and men, because they are all complicit in this.

Cekoviu, I know you probably won't believe this, but this right here is both sexist and racist.

Obviously. I was making a point.

[Kandorith]

+1

The systematic European white patriarchy has created a system of oppression that to this day places women and people of color on the same level as dogs. The only real solution is to create a mandatory reeducation system for whites and men, because they are all complicit in this.

Whatever you are smoking or drinking, I want some too.

[Satuga]

Cekoviu, I know you probably won't believe this, but this right here is both sexist and racist.

Obviously. I was making a point.

Ah I see you were being facetious in order to reel someone into getting offended so you could point the whole "if the other party is offended/hurt/etc, that is their problem not the one holding said opinion." thing at em.

It was a little hard to tell over text.

[Sskiss]

The systematic European white patriarchy has created a system of oppression that to this day places women and people of color on the same level as dogs. The only real solution is to create a mandatory reeducation system for whites and men, because they are all complicit in this.

Cekoviu, I know you probably won't believe this, but this right here is both sexist and racist.

Yeah, it sure is Satuga! However, Cekoviu still has the right to that opinion regardless of how wrong headed it is.

[Satuga]

Yeah, it sure is Satuga! However, Cekoviu still has the right to that opinion regardless of how wrong headed it is.

If that was their proper view then yes they do, just as I have to the right to say "hey that's not cool". Also I was mostly pointing it out cause I've seen Cekoviu be pretty against racism and sexism so I thought they were being hypocritical when they were just being facetious

[Portals]

No they shouldn't

If others are snowflakes so be it

[Dragonisia]

When we start policing opinions, we devolve into thought police. People may hold offensive opinions as long as they do not cause harm, which requires an act. Expressing an opinion that is harmful, or hateful, does not necessarily cause harm. A rational mind should be able to compensate for hateful or harmful words. The problem is when a recipient mind is compromised mental illness can turn words into a danger as solid as stone. Thus with humanity, it's hard to discern when voicing a hateful or harmful opinion will cause genuine harm, but it shouldn't abridge the right to self-expression. People who cannot cope need treatment and care and to avoid such confrontations where such views may be expressed.

When views perceived as hateful or harmful results in violent action on the behalf of the holder, that's when it becomes crime.

It is important to note that all opinions perceived as hateful or harmful, may not factually be, some go out of their way to seek to be offended. I consider those individuals who seek to be offended of the compromised mental class, they lack some part of Maslow's hierarchy and are seeking an unhelpful way to fill that void. That said, if a person holds a view you perceive as hateful and this individual has a reputation for being a kind entity, it may be important to clarify their views in the event there was miscommunication or a misconception.

For example I hold a complex religious view that many despise. I am a Christian who believes strongly that heterosexual relationships are the only righteous and holy path for a human to walk in terms of sexual/marital relationships based on religious doctrine and a combination of the belief that such is needed for procreation of the species as a shared responsibility. However, I will not condemn another person for embracing the other life-styles as I am tolerant and believe that if others wish to be wed by their own doctrines in their own holy places, so be it. Long as I am not required to participate or contribute, I will not chastise them, brow beat them, treat them any differently, we can even still be friends. They just have to realize I will never look favorably on that relationship. But we're not required to all share the same view point, so that shouldn't be a problem between rational minds. My religion teaches me that God gave us a choice to sin or not to sin, it's just if we wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, we must be obedient and not sin. That said the only sins I believe must be restrained by force of government law are those that cause direct, immediate harm to persons on a physical, financial, life-impacting level.

My view is complex. Some would say this means I am against Homosexuality.. some on the other side who believe homosexuality is something that should be persecuted would call me pro-homosexuality or lgbtq+ favoring/endorsing because I am not going out of my way to push my choices on others. Truth is in the middle though, I am against it, I don't condone it, but I'm also not going to be intolerant or hate others because they have embraced it. I am not going to try to meddle in their lives. I will just be me, and if they want to follow God and be like me, so be it. If not, their choice, as it has always been as it always should be.

But this is why cancel culture these days has become so toxic. If you do not immediately apologize for your opinions, for who you are in some instances as this is part of my Christian identity that I hold these beliefs, then based on a few sound bytes suddenly you are a social outcast. This is why many Christians who hold a similar view point to mine feel persecuted in the modern world, it's just that people no longer take sufficient time to understand each other as complex beings. Then again, there are those that also have taken Christ's mantle and warped it to their own personal agendas of hatred, those aren't doctrine abiding followers, but they get labeled as Christian because they claim the mantle smearing us all. Christians (literally Christian means follower of Christ.. so if you're not following, what are you?) act in love, never in hatred.. even towards our worst 'enemies'. Heck we try not to even have enemies other than sin itself. And hate doesn't fight sin, it emboldens it. Sin can only be fought through reasoning, logic, compassion, and being convincing.

But this is just one example of how "harm" is even a matter of subjectivity. Self-harm by not taking the time to understand what others are conveying is actually pretty common. People want a black/white.. a clean cut and easy understanding of reality. Problem is that the gross simplification of humanity undercuts its value and causes good people to get tossed in with the worst in our societies. There's a desire for a simple social paradigm of good people / bad people.. when almost everyone falls into complex shades of grey.

That said, the only time you should apologize for an opinion is when you know you have expressed it in hatred and with intent to cause harm. It's something we must all self-evaluate. Delivery of an opinion is almost as important as the opinion itself.

Blessings of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be upon you all.

[Nuroblav]

Yeah, it sure is Satuga! However, Cekoviu still has the right to that opinion regardless of how wrong headed it is.

If that was their proper view then yes they do, just as I have to the right to say "hey that's not cool". Also I was mostly pointing it out cause I've seen Cekoviu be pretty against racism and sexism so I thought they were being hypocritical when they were just being facetious

Damn. I didn't detect the sarcasm in what Cekoviu said, but I get that all fits now

[USS Monitor]

But if you won't tell the truth about who you voted for to a person you're on a date with, that is a case in which your hesitation should cause you to rethink your views.

Or rethink who you're dating.

[DACOROMANIA]

I'm Christian and its principles are pro-life and anti-cannibalism.
If a majority of the world is converting against pro-life and legalize cannibalism, then should I apologize for my opinion just because the most of the world said the opposite?

It's the same case with the radical views promoting racial supremacy, genocide and antisemitism. Look at Hitler and Stalin. They had millions of people to their side. Who didn't had same opinions died.

Should I apologize for that my opinion is different of that of the majority? Never.

History is going again too close to repeat like in the 1939. Most of laws are not based on morality and laws could change any time.

If a large number of people may want dictatorship but I want democracy then what? Should I die? just because I want to be free?
Where's the free speech? Where's...

[Geneviev]

Should they apologize? No, only a spineless person would do so. Would I accept their apology? No, I would not accept the "apology" of a coward.

I wouldn't call someone who regrets something they said a coward. If they were only told to apologize and they don't mean it, that would actually be spineless.

[Bear Stearns]

My opinion is to dropkick people in the nuts for fun. Should I apologize?

[Dragonisia]

My opinion is to dropkick people in the nuts for fun. Should I apologize?

That would be assault, not an opinion.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

If they choose to. Free speech, and all that. I may not like an opinion, but that doesn't give me a reason to censor it (unless it's deliberately misleading - flat earth, anti-vaxx, etc).

[Ethan Allen]

I would say that no opinion, thought, or idea should be apologized for unless someone truly feels sorry for it and wishes to apologize.

[Geneviev]

If they choose to. Free speech, and all that. I may not like an opinion, but that doesn't give me a reason to censor it (unless it's deliberately misleading - flat earth, anti-vaxx, etc).

What about things like extremist religion?

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

If they choose to. Free speech, and all that. I may not like an opinion, but that doesn't give me a reason to censor it (unless it's deliberately misleading - flat earth, anti-vaxx, etc).

What about things like extremist religion?

Sadly. The first amendment was made to protect expression, speech, and religion. Being religious myself, it hurts to see places like Westboro. But we legally can't stop them from operating (though, in an ideal world, Westboro would be blasted off the face of the Earth).

[Vetalia]

If they choose to. Free speech, and all that. I may not like an opinion, but that doesn't give me a reason to censor it (unless it's deliberately misleading - flat earth, anti-vaxx, etc).

What about things like extremist religion?

Even that is no problem unless they are actively engaged in criminal activity. I don't think it should ever be the role of government to decide what constitutes "extremist" thought whether it relates to religion, politics, race, sexuality, or anything else.

[Stylan]

if you have to publicly apologize for your beliefs maybe reconsider them

ie nazism, fascism etc

[Rojava Free State]

But if you won't tell the truth about who you voted for to a person you're on a date with, that is a case in which your hesitation should cause you to rethink your views.

Or rethink who you're dating.

Thankfully most people in my generation aren't huge fans of trump or Clinton so we gucci

Unfortunately the cult of Obama lives on

[Rojava Free State]

+1

The systematic European white patriarchy has created a system of oppression that to this day places women and people of color on the same level as dogs. The only real solution is to create a mandatory reeducation system for whites and men, because they are all complicit in this.

Step 1 in how to start a race war

[Stylan]

+1

The systematic European white patriarchy has created a system of oppression that to this day places women and people of color on the same level as dogs. The only real solution is to create a mandatory reeducation system for whites and men, because they are all complicit in this.

A little extreme, but I think incorporating more accurate history into schools is a good idea. I.e removing the insane amounts of whitewashing in most history books, etc. etc.

[Pancania]

Hm... Why should anyone apologize for his/her opinion?
It's ... Never.

Soviet Union tried also to fix this NS regular issue of free speech through a so-called "Perestroika", even if it was too late for that giant "autocrat" to survive.
And sure, who wasn't a pro-soviet regime was shot down later with his whole family into planned "accidents" by KGB agents... so it worked (very well) for a while.

There's no need for "sorry".

*Don't worry, the secret eyes watches you*

[Rojava Free State]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lQUURGS0OtQ

My feeling when someone gets offended by my opinions

[Geneviev]

What about things like extremist religion?

Sadly. The first amendment was made to protect expression, speech, and religion. Being religious myself, it hurts to see places like Westboro. But we legally can't stop them from operating (though, in an ideal world, Westboro would be blasted off the face of the Earth).

You could stop them from saying the most extreme things, at least.