The seduction of the simple

Click  HERE

Some points u can walk away with, with reference to the qn below:

SHOULD:
open discussion is not about getting people to agree with you (though it is a bonus if they so), but to inform people WHY you (e,g, the govt) made the unpopular decision that you did, so that even if they still disagree with you after hearing u discussed it, at least now they know WHY u did it. It could also be that after they hear your explanation, they might agree with u. Either way, both support the need for open discussion of unpopular issues:
Citizens need to be informed and by that, I do not mean that everyone should always agree. I am saying that agreements or disagreements must be fact-based, reasoned, premised on mutual respect and a recognition that an opposite position may also have claim to legitimacy.

SHOULD NOT:

can lead to this, which is non-constructive:
Complaining is a low standard of democratic involvement. But hiding anonymously behind a keyboard and banging out opinions, slander, expletives, invective and accusations is no standard at all.

Qn:    How far, in your society, should unpopular views be open to discussion? (Cam. 2013)