> I still don't want their existence in the public sphere to limit my expression. They're not that important and we shouldn't make them out to be.
See this is the key thing and a conflict I pretty much expect and accept. I think they are important, on the metric of their body count over the last century. I'm willing to accept some limitations to public speech, both mine and yours, to reduce their power and risk in the future.
You don't accept that tradeoff, which I find a consistent and reasonable position that I also oppose. But your first comment did imply that it was the only valid position for reasonable people to have ("better stewards of their beliefs"). You may not have intended that meaning but it's the one I read.
See this is the key thing and a conflict I pretty much expect and accept. I think they are important, on the metric of their body count over the last century. I'm willing to accept some limitations to public speech, both mine and yours, to reduce their power and risk in the future.
You don't accept that tradeoff, which I find a consistent and reasonable position that I also oppose. But your first comment did imply that it was the only valid position for reasonable people to have ("better stewards of their beliefs"). You may not have intended that meaning but it's the one I read.