I agree with your view of the problem as a continuum. Clearly, legislating every minutiae is an overkill.
The people should decide where we land on the spectrum. If nobody bothers to sue their former friends, it will remain unregulated. Or if there is a precedent because some thin-skinned person was gravely offended and did sue the ex-fri…
I agree with your view of the problem as a continuum. Clearly, legislating every minutiae is an overkill.
The people should decide where we land on the spectrum. If nobody bothers to sue their former friends, it will remain unregulated. Or if there is a precedent because some thin-skinned person was gravely offended and did sue the ex-friend, it doesn't have to be a binding precedent: if two former friends don't want to sue each other, they shouldn't be required to.
As to the difference from the current system: I guess it would be in making it acceptable to deal with the issues this way, and for people to understand why it is a better way (if it indeed is. I don't have a manifesto, a plan, or certainty that this is a good idea).
Thankfully, I'm not personally threatened by ostracization. However, I am annoyed by its effects on the conversations held in a polite society (a part of the society where most intellectual conversations happen). It is detrimental to frank discussion of potentially interesting ideas. Forbidding to talk about the Nazi-philosopher-who-shall-not-be-named just removes information from the world, making us all poorer.
I agree with your view of the problem as a continuum. Clearly, legislating every minutiae is an overkill.
The people should decide where we land on the spectrum. If nobody bothers to sue their former friends, it will remain unregulated. Or if there is a precedent because some thin-skinned person was gravely offended and did sue the ex-friend, it doesn't have to be a binding precedent: if two former friends don't want to sue each other, they shouldn't be required to.
As to the difference from the current system: I guess it would be in making it acceptable to deal with the issues this way, and for people to understand why it is a better way (if it indeed is. I don't have a manifesto, a plan, or certainty that this is a good idea).
Thankfully, I'm not personally threatened by ostracization. However, I am annoyed by its effects on the conversations held in a polite society (a part of the society where most intellectual conversations happen). It is detrimental to frank discussion of potentially interesting ideas. Forbidding to talk about the Nazi-philosopher-who-shall-not-be-named just removes information from the world, making us all poorer.