My understanding is that downvotes are not to be used to "virtue signal" simple differences of opinion. That's what the "mute" button is for.
Downvoting is free-speech in the exact same way that shouting down a speaker in public is free-speech.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is the first time I've actually spoken to someone who openly advocates for SJW tactics.
Booing is not speech. A cow can Moo, but that is not speech.
(IFF) you are advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) you are advocating for SJW tactics.
(IFF) you are NOT advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) please simply explain what you ARE advocating for.
A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.
However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").
To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).
A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.
Do you also believe "disturbing the peace" (midnight road construction as performance art for example) is sacrosanct free speech?
Are you familiar with the saying, "your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face"? *
A primary function of Freedom Of Speech is to protect the people's right to criticize their government.
Now imagine, that a government (or one of its individual agents) broadcast loud booing OVER the soundtrack of any media it found critical.
This would be de facto censorship, not free speech.