I have more reason to speak them then someone with less controversial views. — Ovaloid

Sure, we are interested in at least making a strong case for our views; how often one person is actually so convinced of somebody else's view point that they actually change their mind... probably not that often.

Why do you, with controversial views (if they are), have more reason to speak them than people whose views are not controversial?

I'm not unsympathetic. As someone with controversial, and sometimes very unpopular views, I get that one feels obligated to reveal what thinks is true. But this obligation is pretty much driven by emotion. I want to be heard. I'm not disparaging that motivation -- I think emotion is more responsible for what we believe and think than logic will ever be.

Did you respond to Sapientia in the thread from whence your reference came?

I want a thread about stuff I should read.

@Hanover, read this.

Why do you, with controversial views (if they are), have more reason to speak them than people whose views are not controversial? — Bitter Crank

(or unpopular)
Because by definition it is less likely that there are people already saying them and that the listener already believes them (preaching to the choir).

but only insofar as everyone else with an opinion does, to some degree or another. Convincing people and being convinced is part of the point of a place like this. Is it not? — Ovaloid

My motivation is more along the lines of sharing my views, and that's really what I'm interested in from other people, too. I enjoy reading different views, because I find people and their various weltanschauungs interesting, as ends in themselves.

In a philosophical context, this often involves challenges, objections, etc. to views, but I really see that as providing tools for each other to shore up our different views.

And I agree with you that sharing different views is more interesting when they're actually different--that is, when they're fairly novel.

Thank you for the link.