Volume of Opinions
Part of the belief in free speech principles is that everyone should be “entitled to their own opinion.”
As a result, it’s not uncommon to run into people with a difference of opinion in the marketplace of ideas.
In this marketplace, you will find some truly wild hot takes like “I don’t care for pineapple on pizza.”
Examples like this are often the implied scenario that justifies our steadfast belief in freedom of speech and the right to hold different opinions.
But there is a significant volume of opinions out there, beyond opposition or support of the sweet and savory delight known as Hawaiian Pizza.
Uncovering The Sinister Pineapple Agenda
The problem with the “marketplace of ideas” is how easily it’s exploited by using “opinion” as a linguistic sleight of hand.
Behind the cover of “simply having an earnest difference of opinion” people will shamelessly blurt out something like “I don’t think trans people should exist” or “making all abortion illegal is worth the women and babies who die during childbirth.”
Now, if someone fills their head with thoughts like this but never shares them or acts on them, we might be able to still call that an “opinion.”
But the moment they turn up the volume — whether quietly disclosing to a friend or shouting it onto the internet — it stops being an opinion and becomes incitement.
And that’s a quick way to spot it: if someone were to act on your opinion, would it lead to someone else being harmed? Opinions aren’t just about the belief, but accountability for the logical consequences of that belief shared or acted upon.
So when heavily funded online influencers who amass an audience crank the volume to 11, broadcasting violent rhetoric in speeches and debates, they aren’t just sharing “opinions.” They are mobilizing harm through direct calls for violence and catalyzing support for policies that make certain groups less safe.
And despite this reality, politicians and pundits alike, afraid of breaking decorum, will twist themselves in knots defending hate speech, calls to violence, and inflammatory rhetoric as merely a “difference of opinion.”
Turn Up Your Own Volume
Fascist rhetoric isn’t a “difference of opinion” any more than someone walking up to you and smashing your head in with a hammer is a “difference in greeting customs.”
So here’s what you do when you spot this trick: Call them out and shut it down. Don’t debate them. Don’t engage with the premise. Just name what they’re doing.
“That’s not an opinion, that’s violent rhetoric. Either you haven’t considered the consequences of your words, or you don’t care. Which is it?”
Force them to own it. Make them choose between ignorance and malice.
Because any “opinion” that supports the suffering or death of any individual or group is no longer an opinion. It’s an incitement.
And the first step toward safety is refusing to let violence hide behind language.
This is not a suggestion. This is a responsibility if we want a kinder, safer, and more equitable world.
I hope you enjoyed this post!
If you liked this, you will LOVE my newsletter: The Infinite Impact If you’re not yet a subscriber, click here to get it now, totally free.
Want even more? Consider becoming a member of The Impact Lab. Becoming a member gets you access to the online community and exclusive members-only resources.
PLUS, you get to feel great for supporting an independent creator.
