Hacker News Reader

I do not get the impression, from the previous post nor this one, that Sam is unaware of the distinction between the impact of/consequences of/hurt caused by one controversial stance 50 years ago ("gay people should have rights") and the opposite one today ("gay people shouldn't have rights").

If this distinction is something he understands (which, personally, I believe he does but hey, I could be wrong), could it be that it's not him missing the point?

View on HN

Sam's argument seems to be that one of our major social problems is that we socially disallow controversial ideas, which makes him feel uncomfortable expressing himself and stifles social progress. Therefore, we should start allowing controversial ideas.

The parent comment asserts that Sam's premise is wrong: ideas aren't being rejected for their controversy, but rather for their harmfulness. Saying that "it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people" (see his previous post) implicitly draws a false equivalence between civil rights advocacy and bigotry as fair-game "controversial" ideas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com