“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.”

表現規制火付けをしていくソーシャル放火魔を逃がしてはいけない、という話。
https://t.co/QTBiLVVudB

— buvery (@buvery) September 13, 2020

論争の内容がいまいちつかめていないんだが、

@tekidanhei 作品は常に批判に開かれています。批判する自由もあれば、その批判をさらに批判する自由もあります。批判を受けて変えるのも、変えないのも制作者の自由です（強制できないですし）

これは正しいんじゃないの？

批判する自由もあれば、反論する自由もある。その応答合戦、攻撃防御を権力者が封鎖するのがまずい。

What Right Not to Be Offended?

By BEN SHAPIRO

But the segment of the interview that grabbed the public’s imagination wasn’t Peterson’s discussion of the wage gap or the biology of hierarchical relationships. It was a very simple exchange over the value of truth. Newman questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their biology. “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.

He plays her own card against her. By demonstrating that anyone can be offended by anything, he returns the conversation from the vague recesses of subjective reaction to the hard and fast ground of objective truth.

保守系メディアの論者みたいだけど、その内容に賛成、反対は別にして、思考するために、あるいは、真理の探究のためには、他人を不快にする言論も許されなければならない。それが大前提で、作品の発表、批判、反論、再反論する言論、表現のやり取りもゆるされるべき。