sunsets_44

The author sounds like a caricature out of an Ayn Rand novel. "Traditional taxis already have a sensible limit to minimize congestion"? "Fairness fees"? wew.

>We consider hateful imagery to be logos, symbols, or images whose purpose is to promote hostility and malice against others based on their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

Let the endless game of whack-a-mole over what is or isn't a dogwhistle commence, I guess.

>But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell?

Well, on some issues you can always appeal to authorities - for example if people have strong opinions on economic issues you can compare that consensus to IGM Forum polls. People are oftentimes predictably biased.

Alternatively, you can try to get people who disagree with eachother to perform an ideological Turing test. It should be informative if someone basically cannot meaningfully articulate the actual arguments that are being presented that they disagree with.