I'd have to dig for why I thought this, but I thought that re your "assuming the likelihood of broad conformity" you were talking about broad conformity re ethical normatives.

"Does not like to hold contradictory ideas" isn't an ethical normative, of course.

But ignoring that, shouldn't what you assume be either:

(A) "I think all women should wear the hijab", and "I think all people should be treated equally" wouldn't actually be contradictory to the person in question (in which case you could inquire why the person doesn't see them as contradictory if you're interested in a conversation with that person),

or

(B) They don't have a problem with contradictory normatives (in which case you could get more info about that if you're interested in a conversation with that person)

?

Because otherwise you're basically assuming that (i) they'd think it's contradictory, (ii) they'd care about that, but (iii) they're simply too stupid, naive, careless or whatever to have realized this before your brilliant mind came along and noticed it for them.

And re this in the context of this thread and why you brought it up, you weren't thinking that I was claiming something contradictory, were you? I'm pretty sure that you simply had a problem with me not holding something you take to be an ethical/normative commonality, holding something that you disagree with.

Oh, and by the way, a lot of what I'm interested in when it comes to message boards like this is:

curating a collection of 'opinions from the Internet' — Isaac

I'm interested in people simply because I like people, and I think the variety we see in people is interesting. A lot of what attracted and still attracts me to philosophy to this day is "all the strange things that people say" under its rubric. I'm particularly interested in unusual people. (And not just when it comes to philosophy.)

Terrapin Station thank you very much for your response. I do like a respectful debate. I can give a very interesting source on how the majority smothers introverts. There's a free E-Book very easy to find online called "The power of introverts". The short conference by Susan Cain is also available on Youtube. It's about 48 minutes (and you can even put it at X1,25 speed to make it go faster). There's also the first part of the book available on Youtube. It's 6 hours long, and it's all worth it.

The second thing about morons making wise people shut up can also be answered in part by the same conference, but I was referring more to how violence in society (physical and psychological) is the tool of the person who lack intelligence, generally used against someone with more skills and intelligence, and/or against people we think are too nice to counter-attack us. Violence is a way to gain back control in situations when someone think he/she can't win playing by the rules.

There are boundaries in society to prevent violence, but they're only partially efficient. And it targets mostly physical violence. The concept of bullying is an archetype of the extrovert making the life of an introvert miserable. And when adults intervene in bullying matters, it's usually when there's physical violence involved. So as long as it's "only" psychological, it basically never ends. And even after school is over, the damages are there for good.

Ironically, a lot of introverts bullied for years end up in prison, cause they've let themselves be psychologically bullied for a very long time. And one day they snap, and respond with an act of extreme violence. Like stabbing a bully. And they are jailed, while the bullies and their friends are legally considered victims.

Extroverts are better than introverts in social games. They are more charismatic, people have a hard time saying no to them, they are always believed more, when in fact they lie much more than introverts. I'm not gonna quote the whole Susan Cain book, but generally speaking, extroverts have better opportunities in society. In theory, everybody can to anything they want, but everything in modern society is easier to achieve if you are an extrovert. The age of social networks is very tough on them. I'm sure you won't be surprised now if I tell you I consider myself an introvert.

From some of your beliefs, I would tend to think you are more on the extrovert side. Cause it's very obvious from an introvert perspective that "pure" free speech is a dangerous thing. It's a reflex for an introvert to think before they act, or think before they speak. So not giving our opinions when we have the chance is something we are used to. So we don't tend to see a drama there. But there is one. The drama is that extroverts decide almost everything in society. For the best or for the worst. And what they decide is usually good for extroverts, and not that good for introverts.

A good example from Susan Cain is that it became mainstream in most industries to force people to work in teams. Usually teams of 4 or 5 people. But introverts are known to be way more efficient when working alone. Most of the brilliant minds in the world are introverts, and they prefer to work alone, in a quiet environment. But they are forced to brainstorm in teams anyway. Which is a huge loss for society, cause very few ideas from introverts actually make the final cut.

Now, back on free speech. As Noam Chomsky said, saying "I don't mind if the government spy on me cause I have nothing to hide" is like saying "I don't need free speech cause I have nothing to say". Well other people might have something to say. And it might be very helpful to society if they are allowed to say it. That's why I'm 95% for free speech. But the 5% where I'm against it would be to regulate the times where free speech becomes abusive.

For an example, "pure" free speech would mean that advertising companies could tell us any lies they want about their products, without any consequences. The tobacco industry could tell us that smoking is good for the health, and it's also very good for kids, it can help kids cope with anxiety, etc. "Pure" free speech mean there would be zero regulation. So zero boundaries against lies. So that's why I think science has to play a role on where to draw the lines. As long as science is really independent. Which is not always the case. But it's still much better to rely on science to draw the lines, than to let the free market decide everything.

I might have replied to your questions without the right quote procedure. So look for my longer message.

Terrapin Station thank you very much for your response. I do like a respectful debate. I can give a very interesting source on how the majority smothers introverts. There's a free E-Book very easy to find online called "The power of introverts". The short conference by Susan Cain is also available on Youtube. It's about 48 minutes (and you can even put it at X1,25 speed to make it go faster). There's also the first part of the book available on Youtube. It's 6 hours long, and it's all worth it. — L Michaud

One thing at a time. Instead of listening to a 48-minute presentation, reading an entire book, etc. in order to have the question answered--especially since I'm skeptical about the claim, and I'd be really annoyed if I spent the time on something like that and I felt that it didn't answer my question, could you just give an example/explanation of why you think that free speech absolutism would "smother introverts" whereas censoring some speech would not?

Noam Chomsky said, saying "I don't mind if the government spy on me cause I have nothing to hide — L Michaud

I could be wrong but this does not sound like something Chomsky would say. Would you please point me to the source of this quote? Thanks!

You only quoted a part of the citation. It's out of context now. I'm not 100% sure about the formulation, but it goes like this : "Saying I don't mind if the government spy on me cause I have nothing to hide is like saying I don't need free speech cause I have nothing to say.". The quote is an argument against mass surveillance, and also pro-free-speech. Not the opposite. Chomsky certainly mind about freedom of speech. He's one of the biggest advocates of freedom of speech.

It was said in one of his videos you can find on Youtube. I don't know which one. And I also heard Edward Snowden say that in an interview. In fact, Snowden said it first. And Chomsky quoted Snowden. But I could not say in which video Snowden said it also. But it was on Youtube for sure.

Ah - that's better. Also I mis-read the second half of the quote. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I strongly recommend you start the 48 minutes conference from Susan Cain, and if after 5 minutes you are bored, just stop it. But it's a good gamble. I don't like to watch long videos myself, and I ended up listening the whole audio book (around 12 hours). It's pure gold from start to finish. And she's backed up with science at every corner.

Because of her, now I assume myself as an introvert. I'm proud of it. But most people don't get what I'm proud of, cause the value of a human being today is absurdly based on social skills. It's not even funny. If you have great social skills, and you make friends easily, it's very hard to understand what most introverts must endure. There's so much tolerance in society for psychological violence against introverts.

Now, how is this related to the free-speech debate? Well first of all, I'm not sure you can really understand all the implications of your own beliefs about free-speech. We are not even close, even in 2019, to a society where free-speech is absolute. So what it would look like can only be theorized.

In today's society (With huge variations by countries, states, cities and villages) what you are allowed to say is restricted. Nowhere is there absolute free-speech. Nowhere. There's always something you are not able to speak about, or some opinions that will put you in trouble instantly. People will get mad at you, and might even try to destroy you, and ruin you. In sociology, this effect is called "Informal social control". Even if you are allowed, legally, to say something, people might want to destroy you.

All that said, a society where free-speech is absolute would need to systematically punish people when they disrespect the free-speech of others. Otherwise people would just censor themselves like they always did. That's the effect of "Informal social control" (All sorts of violence and threats, usually done by extroverts to make everyone shut up. Not just introverts.). People fear their own opinions, cause their reputations, safety, financial well-being, and sometimes even their lives are on the line; when they touch certain topics, likely to inflame some people or groups.

It's funny cause while I'm writing this, I just convinced myself that it should be a good thing for introverts if we really reach a society where free-speech is absolute. But only if we start to punish people who try to control what others are allowed to say. You almost convinced me of your own belief, just by letting me talk. That's the power of free-speech. :O)

On another matter, to back up my original claim (about extroverts smothering introverts), the only concrete example I can think of at the moment are sects. I'm gonna talk as if all leaders were all males, for obvious reasons.

The leader of a sect is the archetype of the extrovert (Someone who tend to modify his environment to suit his needs), and he generally surrounds himself with a few extroverts (inner circle) and a ton of naive introverts (bottom of the pyramid). And the bottom of the pyramid slowly become one with the beliefs of their leader. They start to believe everything he tells them, and at some point, it become natural for them to twist arms in the name of their leader, to force members into submission, and make them true believers too, by all means. Any fundamentalism, religion, and most social movements start that way. Even movements actually making some sense have a structure where a few extroverts use introverts as tools to get things done.

Right now, I think society need more freedom of speech, cause public debates are kind of rigged, and most speakers are selected, or tolerated by those in power, cause their beliefs are close to their owns.

No problemo.

I'd have to dig for why I thought this, but I thought that re your "assuming the likelihood of broad conformity" you were talking about broad conformity re ethical normatives.

"Does not like to hold contradictory ideas" isn't an ethical normative, of course. — Terrapin Station

It was, but the point I'm making is not specific to ethical normatives, so I used a more obvious example, to make it clearer. It's about the utility of assuming some common baseline views so as not to have to ask for the full set before engaging (which might be enormous). Whether those opinions are common because we're all fairly rational (and such conclusions are amenable to rational thought), or whether those conclusions are common because they are somewhat compassionate and by and large, humans have empathy.

As to what I'd assume, no, neither A nor B. For two reasons.

1. Why would I assume a person was right where their conclusions differed from mine, but where their originating or co-existing principles seem (even if only by my assumption) to be the same as mine? That would be tantamount to assuming I was wrong. Now I may be, but it would be utterly foolish to go about simply assuming I'm wrong. If I think I'm wrong I should change my views.

2. I post on this forum to have my ideas challenged. I'm not so arrogant as to think anyone would be interested in them wholesale. I make a reasonable assumption that at least most others post for the same reasons, so I'd be letting them down if I were to just say "well I'm sure that all makes sense to you" and leave it at that. Most people like to be challenged, and the ones that don't, I'm not interested in talking to.

As to that making it seem I assume people are "too stupid, naive, careless or whatever to have realized this before your brilliant mind came along and noticed it for them", this concept undermines the whole point of discussion. If everything I say is so basic and obvious that everyone I speak to has already thought of it, then what's the point in posting? And I know you don't feel that way so I'm confused as to why you'd bring this up? Obviously in my simplified example it's pretty obvious, but most discussions are more complicated than that and it's perfectly reasonable to think someone might not have spotted a flaw which you have.

you weren't thinking that I was claiming something contradictory, were you? I'm pretty sure that you simply had a problem with me not holding something you take to be an ethical/normative commonality, holding something that you disagree with. — Terrapin Station

You've either missed or forgotten the position I forwarded to begin this little sub-section. I'll try to be clearer.

1. You almost certainly have not posted all of you're views here, you hold both moral and rational beliefs which you have not written out in full here.

2. In the absence of your elucidation, I've assumed some of those moral and rational beliefs on the basis of my experience with normal human beings. I've assumed them rather than asked, for the reasons I've already given. For example, if you said "old people shouldn't receive free health care" I would assume your argument is economic, not because you have a psychopathic hatred of old people. I assume the former because it's very unlikely someone with such a psychopathic hatred would be composed enough to to write otherwise thoughtful comments on other matters.

3. I think aspects of your moral position with regards free speech contradict these other positions I assume you hold on the basis of being a normal averagely compassionate human being.

That's why earlier I (with tounge in cheek, I hope you realise) said that you must be a sociopath. I'm saying that your views here contradict some other views of normal socially concerned people which I assume you have.

I also reserve the right to form, and argue from, an opinion of your Web of beliefs other than the exact picture you slowly present. I'm not simply going to take everyone's word for everything they say without comment. If I think someone is claiming to hold a view, simply to avoid admitting an error (people do), where I don't think they genuinely hold it, I'll say so. As I've said before, my route into ethics was via psychology, so my approach is perhaps tainted by that.

Well first of all, I'm not sure you can really understand all the implications of your own beliefs about free-speech. — L Michaud

So this is kind of patronizing, and suggests that you have thought a lot more about it than I have, or at least you understand it a lot better than I have, and if only I had thought about it as much as you have, or at least if I had your understanding or insight, I wouldn't have the view I have.

Nowhere is there absolute free-speech. Nowhere. — L Michaud

Correct. What I'm saying is that if I were king, there would be no speech restrictions.

All that said, a society where free-speech is absolute would need to systematically punish people when they disrespect the free-speech of others. — L Michaud

I'm not going to punish anyone for "disrespect."

You'd simply not be allowed to initiate nonconsensual violence (for any reason, in response to speech or otherwise).

And sure, people might temper what they'd say in some cases as they do now, but that would be their decision. It's not as if I'd want to force people to say whatever is on their mind, even if they don't want to.

It was, but the point I'm making is not specific to ethical normatives, so I used a more obvious example, to make it clearer. — Isaac

Okay, but what I'm most dubious about is the claim with respect to ethical normatives. So that's what I was hoping for an example of.

And now grumble grumble grumble with these friggin long posts again, by the way.

Why would I assume a person was right — Isaac

First off, when we're talking about morality, no one is correct or incorrect. So you're not assuming that they're "right." You'd be assuming that either to them, what they're saying isn't contradictory, or to them, they don't care about contradictions, rather than assuming that they're basically morons who haven't thought through what they're saying enough, but here you come to "correct" them.

So the track to take would be to learn more about them and how they think, so that you learn why it's not contradictory to them, or alternately why they don't care that it's contradictory.

You might learn that they actually do care that what they're saying is contradictory, and that they simply overlooked a contradiction, but you're not going to learn that until you talk to them more where you actually care something about them and how they think.

2. In the absence of your elucidation, I've assumed some of those moral and rational beliefs on the basis of my experience with normal human beings. I've assumed them rather than asked, for the reasons I've already given. — Isaac

Yet look at the thousands and thousands and thousands of words you're writing. Just this one post of yours is nearing 700 words! (An acceptable book length (including novels) is only 60,000 words--you could be putting this effort into something more productive that might actually be able to earn you money.) So maybe just ask--"But don't you think such and such?" That would be much simpler and save a lot of time and aggravation.

It's obviously not useful to make the assumptions you're making when it results in so much misunderstanding, when it results in having to blah blah blah on and on and on for so many thousands of words, when it results in so much aggravation. We're on page 71 of this thread already (!!) and most of it is bickering with me, where you're telling me how "useful" your approach is, where if you'd follow my advice instead, this probably would have been over on page 4 or 5.

Well first of all, I'm not sure you can really understand all the implications of your own beliefs about free-speech. We are not even close, even in 2019, to a society where free-speech is absolute. So what it would look like can only be theorized.

Be careful. Arguments of that sort were used against abolitionism. But the fact that there is no freedom is certainly no argument against freedom.

Try to conceive of all the expressions of mankind as one great artifact. Then imagine one piece of it stolen, burned or otherwise censored because of the fears of a few censors. Imagine the insights stolen from us when they killed Socrates. We’d probably still be in the dark ages had we not found a copy of De Rerum Natura collecting dust in some monetary. We might all be epicureans, not Christians, if the work of Epicurus had survived. Censors rob from humanity.

OK, I'll try for a short one. We're talking about two things contradicting each other. Whether those two things are theories about empirical observations, propositions of some logic, or ethical policies. A contradiction is a contradiction.

If A causes B, you can't advocate both the persuit of policy A and the avoidance of outcome B without being contradictory. So for a start, I don't understand why you're suggesting such a generous, charitable type of inquiry when it comes to ethics, when you yourself follow a much more demanding and confrontational approach with other fields (say epistemology, ontology, meta-ethics... ). I don't really get from your approach in those areas that you're thinking other people are probably right from their perspective.

I think you're basically taking the idea that ethics has no 'right' and 'wrong' to mean that no one can ever say anything wrong in any ethical discussion. But a contradiction is still a contradiction. Incoherence is still incoherence. Empirical evidence (with regards to something like consequences of policies) is still empirical evidence. Why are you treating these issues within ethical discussion with such open charity, where you don't in other fields of thought?

First, regardless of what we're talking about, I don't assume that something that seems like a contradiction to me both (a) would seem like a contradiction to the person who said it, and (b) is something that the person would think they should avoid (just in case it would seem like a contradiction to them).

The reason I so often post where I'm asking someone a question is that I'm literally, straightforwardly asking them a curiosity question about their views and how they work in their perspective. That's because it's not clear to me based on what they said, relative to how I think, but I don't automatically assume that people are morons who are posting something they just came up with two minutes ago.

If the person can't or won't respond to questions in good faith, then I might change my tune, especially if they start attacking me or something.

Very interesting point of view. In fact, as I tried to say earlier in other terms, the problem are the censors themselves. If as Socrates suggested, there was a society with a philosopher in command, then if ever there was censorship, it should really be for the greater good. Not so a few can profit from the many, or to help them stay in power. But in today's society, we can't really advocate for censorship, cause most people in command can't be trusted. As Michael Jackson said, "They don't really care about us".

By the way, I've read that Norway hired a Philosopher as "moral compass" for the government in 2005. The guy is named Henrik Syse. It would be very interesting to see what came out of this surprising move. This is basically Socrates theory coming to life. Even if he's not the commander in chief. And likely not all his advice is systematically applied.

I just read a wiki page about him, and he is the son of a former prime minister (Jan P. Syse).

Very interesting point of view. In fact, as I tried to say earlier in other terms, the problem are the censors themselves. If as Socrates suggested, there was a society with a philosopher in command, then if ever there was censorship, it should really be for the greater good. Not so a few can profit from the many, or to help them stay in power. But in today's society, we can't really advocate for censorship, cause most people in command can't be trusted. As Michael Jackson said, "They don't really care about us".

By the way, I've read that Norway hired a Philosopher as "moral compass" for the government in 2005. The guy is named Henrik Syse. It would be very interesting to see what came out of this surprising move. This is basically Socrates theory coming to life. Even if he's not the commander in chief. And likely not all his advice is systematically applied.

I just read a wiki page about him, and he is the son of a former prime minister (Jan P. Syse).

I hate the idea of a philosopher king. Philosophers are good at thinking ideas, but not so good at implementing them. I hope Syse restricts his advising to ethical matters only.

Now that I read myself again, the first quote you made of me does sound insulting. But you're making a false association based on that. People can think about something for decades, and still be filled with superstitions till their last breath.

On their death beds, people with religious beliefs are 4 times more prone to delirium than non-believers. And I believe it's cause they tried to conquer their fear of death by taking a bad tool like religion. When there are tools out there harder to master, but giving much better results. Like philosophy. Or just "Not giving a fuck about dying". That's working great for me.

Also, someone can think about something for 2 seconds, and happen to be right on the first guess. And someone can be wrong about something, and just add meat over and over around their false beliefs. Time tend to make us wiser, but it's not a one-way ticket.

I'm thinking a lot about your second point (If you were a king), which sounds simple, but open up a lot of doors. I think deep down inside of me, there's fear of the unknown. Could you describe what you think the overall effects on society would be if there really was pure freedom of speech in your kingdom?

It's funny cause I'm watching an old show right now called Fantasy Island. Where a distinguished French host receive people on his island, promising to make their best fantasy come true. There's 2 different fantasies per episode, and there's 7 seasons total. Some episodes are on Youtube if you want to see what I'm talking about.

I think your fantasy of a society with absolute free speech would make a very good episode. And most of the times, there's gonna be a "Be careful what you wish for" kind of twist in the scenario. People will realize that there's always downsides to their fantasies. When at first, they only see the good sides, and they expect to spent a perfect week-end filled with pure joy. But it's never happening.

Your last point (about not allowing violence in response to free speech) have me wonder about your definition of violence. Are you considering psychological violence? Cause most people, when they know they can't hurt someone physically, will find twisted ways to make people's lives miserable. The "Informal social control" effect I referred to earlier, works in insidious ways.

Also, not only physical violence is likely not to be reported to justice, but psychological violence is almost never reported. So I don't think freedom of speech would be much greater than it is today. And it would save the US government billions that they would not waste anymore on censorship, so they will just finance more wars. Be careful what you wish for! Haha. Don't worry, I'm kidding.

But what would be a good effect of absolute free speech would be that rich and/or powerful people would not be allowed to fire artists or comedians who supported something they didn't like. Let's take the case of Louis CK. Normally, this exceptional comedian would already be back on TV by now, but people are scared as shit in USA. They fear they could also drown in quicksands if they just say something like "I think the guy is a good comedian, and I would love to see him back on TV.". It could be enough to end their career. And this is also part of the "informal social control" effect, even if it's made by rich people. Cause it's not about the law, it's about personal vendettas.

That's a really sad thing about censorship. Cause a few people can decide to deprive 100 millions people of a comedian they love, someone who make their lives better, make them better persons. And the reason why they do that, is cause 3 grown up women's saw his penis. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. We see breasts all the times, almost everyday, and nobody call themselves victims. But apparently, seeing a penis is an horrible experience. Worst than death.

So I still don't think that free speech should be absolute, but I would not mind to live in your kingdom for 1 or 2 months, just to see what happens. It would certainly be a valuable experience.

I don't think he has actual powers. He just advise. And he does have a very interesting background. He's much more than the son of somebody.

Could you describe what you think the overall effects on society would be if there really was pure freedom of speech in your kingdom? — L Michaud

It has to just be speculation, but one thing that I'd hope would result is that people would be much more skeptical of speech in general. When it's the case that, for example, slanderous/libelous claims can be prosecuted, people tend to think, "If so and so was allowed to say that without legal repercussion, it must be true." When there's no legal recourse, people realize that something isn't true just because someone said it.

I'm a relatively old dude. I used to watch "Fantasy Island" occasionally when it was new.

Your last point (about not allowing violence in response to free speech) have me wonder about your definition of violence. Are you considering psychological violence? — L Michaud

I don't consider psychological effects to be violence.

If I were king we'd not have a capitalist system. No one would be firing anybody.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. Do you mean people would be less likely to lie cause it would be harder for them to lie without getting caught?

What's weird is absolute freedom of speech would also come with the absolute freedom to lie, with zero consequences ever. So I would tend to think that people would just lie more. But in a way, if the whole system become more transparent, it's likely that the average person will also become more transparent. So they could indeed lie less. Very hard to say.

People would be less susceptible to lies, more skeptical of what people say. If anyone and everyone was lying it would be necessary to think critically and to research in order to get by. I think Terras idea is about self reliance and having a better, less gullible population.

I have a hard time swallowing the principle of salvation by excess of lies. You guys are basically saying that people would lie less cause we would all become perfect lie detectors as a result of living in a world where everyone lie all the time.

It makes me think of that NRA argument where we would all be safer if everyone had guns. I hope you guys are seeing the parallel. So everyone would learn to swim through lies like ducks if only everyone would lie more? That's what I'm hearing right now and I don't think it makes any sense.

We are already living in a system where people lie way too much. More of what does not work can't be the solution. In fact, being skeptical about others is a very bad thing. Women's are brainwashed from their early childhood by a ton of "never trust men" principles. Fear of strangers, etc. And the result of that is nice guys who never lies have a very hard time connecting with girls. When those who lie all the time, as a second nature, pass through women's defences like a hot knife in butter.

And I don't even think that people would tend to lie more in a society where free speech is absolute. Companies, medias and governments might try to lie more at first. Tell us smoking cures cancer, we would all be safer with more guns, etc. But if the population has absolute free speech too, it would be easier to put their lies back in their faces. Maybe that's what Terrapin Station was trying to say. Said that way, now I really believe it would make governments and medias more transparent. And as a result of living in a transparent system, people would lie less. Certainly not more.

Those are good points.

I couldn't disagree more with this though...
“In fact, being skeptical about others is a very bad thing. ”

I believe the exact opposite, that one should always be skeptical about what others say. People are not to be trusted.

I believe the exact opposite, that one should always be skeptical about what others say. People are not to be trusted. — DingoJones

That creates more problems than it solves.

We can only agree to disagree. We can't trust everyone, but societies where people tend to trust each other are places where people are much happier, and where the common wealth grow much faster. There's a video on Youtube about trust I was about to explain here, but I will just post the link. The speaker refer to a social experiment on trust that's a huge eye-opener. It's 22 minutes, and can easily be accelerated to X1,25, then it's only about 16 minutes. And it's really worth it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHyApqVjddQ

Do you mean people would be less likely to lie cause it would be harder for them to lie without getting caught? — L Michaud

No. Less likely to believe things that people say just because they say them.

absolute freedom to lie, with zero consequences ever. — L Michaud

Well, the consequences would be speech consequences (in other words, responses via speech), credibility consequences, etc.

Why--because that's what I asked for an example of (because that's what Isaac was talking about). What argument did I give? — Terrapin Station

Look, I've given you an example of what you asked for, and I've explained why it counts as an example. If I am capable of either recalling your earlier argument or looking it up with the advanced search function, then so are you. If you've forgotten it, then look it up and get back to me in order to give a proper response.

The usefulness consists in reaching the right answer, or in solving the problem. For that, a group of people must have the right things in common, and if someone like you ends up being the odd one out, reaching the wrong conclusion, then you end up being disregarded because there are things which are more important than someone's contrary opinion. The right answer, and a resolution, are more important than an outspoken individual with misplaced self-importance.

In posts like this, you imply that the right answer hinges on a consensus. But in other posts, you make it clear that if your view isn't the same as the consensus, the consensus is wrong.