I think people with ridiculous views should not have an issue with being ridiculed for those views.
You’re under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you’re presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it’s “too ridiculous to consider”, or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you’re just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don’t have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.
It really feels like you’re the immature bunch, trying to hide who you are because you’re too fragile to own up to it if it’s being scrutinized.
It’s not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It’s just that some people use the free availability of a user’s previous posts/likes as a shortcut for “whataboutisms”. You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual “likes” being public or not.
I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.
As much as I have no obligation to agree with another person’s views, I also have no obligation to argue about them.
There’s clearly views in this world that can be pretty much dismissed outright, if you disagree you’re free to go to a flat earther forum to debate them out of it.
The only reason Musk wants to hide likes is because he agrees with a bunch of really shitty and messed up positions, and he wants to not be responsible for it.
If you like a post saying “I believe that the jews did 9/11” I think it’s fair for someone to look at it and go “Hey that’s obviously fake, really dumb, and kinda hilarious that you’re this stupid.”
You’re under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you’re presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it’s “too ridiculous to consider”, or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you’re just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don’t have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.
It’s not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It’s just that some people use the free availability of a user’s previous posts/likes as a shortcut for “whataboutisms”. You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual “likes” being public or not.
I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.
As much as I have no obligation to agree with another person’s views, I also have no obligation to argue about them.
There’s clearly views in this world that can be pretty much dismissed outright, if you disagree you’re free to go to a flat earther forum to debate them out of it.
The only reason Musk wants to hide likes is because he agrees with a bunch of really shitty and messed up positions, and he wants to not be responsible for it.
If you like a post saying “I believe that the jews did 9/11” I think it’s fair for someone to look at it and go “Hey that’s obviously fake, really dumb, and kinda hilarious that you’re this stupid.”