Nothing. I'm always right, and most importantly the only person who is right.

I'm not eloquent at all, but I guess I was wondering what people's thoughts were on ContraPoint's video on free speech, as generally I agree with her perspective (for those confused on the use of the pronoun, this video was made before she started transitioning)

I approve of this thread so much. This kind of stuff should be mandatory reading before anyone is let on the internet.

Also, I can't answer the question in the title. I try to understand other viewpoints as often as possible. People have reasons for having the views they have, and the more profound the disagreement, the less likely it is to find any common ground (and thus have a fruitful discussion) without trying to understand the opposing view as well. Also, if there are any profound disagreements, changing the opposing side's view is probably close to impossible without understanding.

Not understanding other viewpoints is probably the biggest source of conflict in the world.

The video is actually from a leftist standpoint. I'll try to come up with a TL;DW later.

It's basically a response to people saying that the left are against free speech. I wish I had made some notes last time I watched it, because now I'll have to watch it again to get an accurate summary.

Why is the video so loud, condescending, and obnoxious? I can't even tell what he/she is getting at! 

It needs to be mandatory that on youtube you represent something interesting within the first minute of your youtube video, and actually lead up to your point in the first two minutes. Cutaway jokes are also annoying. 

It's sad because they seem to have good points but they didn't explain them well(non-concise movement from pre-point to point), represent fallacies(getting heat on the internet is not equivalent to being called a racist in college), and just generally take too long. I agree that brevity is the soul of wit can also stand for videos that last hours long, because if you're using all of that time to examine multiple points than you're actually being concise, just point by point. But the video is just too annoying and long to get through, honestly.

Here's a surely controversial one: I would like a detailed explanation on why freedom of speech, or rather, the freedom to spread information, should be *unquestionable*. I agree that letting people say and hear what they want is a net positive, in most cases, but I have some difficulty with it being used as an *axiom*, to which one can refer oneself as absolute truth.

Also - why treat action and inaction differently? What, specifically, differentiates the two?

I feel that any choice we make should be measured by evaluated by simply looking at decisions as a set of probability fields, evaluating the ideal situation to your specific choices.

I'm not in your target group, but my impression is that basically limiting freedom of speech is seen as a slippery slope. On the other hand, people calling for unlimited freedom of speech seem pretty low in numbers.

1. At first glance, they seem entirely different to me. What makes you think they're the same?

2. This sounds a lot like how I view almost everything. I'm not familiar with probability fields, but it sounds like they're close to the way I often think.

The problem with even attempting to try to understand another person's point of view is that we think, in our heads, it just comes down to logic that we can all make sense of. Many, if not most humans, have some kind of guiding moral code or religious beliefs that they justify their political stances on. We all vary, and those guiding codes we follow dictate stances on political issues. But, let's be more specific since I know myself best and my own beliefs:

English Standard Version
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

English Standard Version
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

I don't expect a non believer to be able to "get" my thought process, that would be stupid of me to expect that. That can be, and has been, frustrating at times as I try to explain things out, but it just doesn't happen. And my belief system guides my political views:

I'm against abortion because I know we are created by God.
I believe homosexuality as a sin beacause God says so over and over again in the Bible.
I believe the poor should be helped more than they are now (a view I didn't used to have).
I know God loves all people, not just certain races/genders.

One that I have become convicted by recently is this verse:
English Standard Version
Leviticus 19:34
"You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

It doesn't say "freak out because they might be terrorists" (which is what my brain tells me to do) or "refuse them entry into your country because they don't speak English" or even "Don't allow anyone who isn't a believer in." There aren't conditions to loving on people that come from a far away land, and I've been challanged as of late to love these people far, far more than I have been (love is a verb, not a state of emotions).

There are countless stances on political issues I have that are rooted in Christianity, so if someone doesn't have those same roots as I do, I can't really expect them to be able to understand my perspective. Likewise, I won't be able to understand the perspective of someone who isn't a believer, because I accepted Christ so very long ago I can't even remember what it is like to not have HIM as my savior and perfect model of how to live.