We can. You and I are probably about to do it. My point is simply that there often are people--their perception being their reality--for whom snap judgments and an invective response is the reasonable, if not respectful response to others' speech. Note, for much of human history (and current history, see Russia and Venezuela), an acceptable response has actually been violent/rights restricting.
Invective in response to speech is desirable in its efficiency, should a critical mass feel the same. We can't be having reasonable conversations every time someone has a socially abhorrent thought and brings it up for discussion (no matter how often it's been addressed before). Ain't nobody got time for that. Better a hundred people shouting "fuck you, racist."
Over time what becomes so socially abhorrent to discuss in mixed, public company changes. Whether this is a good or bad thing is besides the point. It has always been this way, and to pretend otherwise is silly. If you want to change the status quo, it takes a lot of fucking work. You will likely deal with quite a bit of push back (because EVERYONE who has done this, has). That push back is a feature of civil society, not a bug. If your idea is good enough, it will probably end up overcoming the initial consequences (by the way, that outcome is still in the cards here!).
> we have to learn how to listen without judging
Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do. Period.
> Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree.
But this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so. The fact that my response might be hostile to your idea is a good indication we might end up agreeing to disagree. But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim.
> I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free speech. . . . I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc.
(Tl;dr) Which leads me to my point. Even if you don't realize it, you are. By demanding that the listener be respectful to an idea they find abhorrent, you are asking for immunity from the most obvious consequence of abhorrent speech--complete and total disrespect (and an appropriately verbalized response) from the listener.
I use the word "you" and "I" here as shorthand...I'm not trying to make this personal it's just easier than typing "some third person blah blah."
