The Paradox of Tolerance: should intolerance be tolerated?

boing
85

I’m pretty well known here for defending words that don’t incite violence or threaten violence, even those I don’t like.

Someone “Jews are running the banks and media and should be stopped”

Me: "Ya know, it that were the case wouldn’t we be doing a better job of it?

Me walks away unharmed because no act of violence has occurred.

Part of the beauty of expression of ideas is that some who express an idea later may come to regret their ways because someone else took the time to care about them and talk to them.

BTW, perhaps you have never actually been on the wrong end of this sort of talk?

4 Likes
86

Should intolerance be tolerated?

No, because there are moral reasons not to. Racism and sexism and bigotry are corrosive to the human spirit in any form, and thus immoral.

  • Intolerance of the form “I hate soccer :soccer:” can be tolerated just fine. There’s nothing moral about hating soccer. Soccer isn’t a human being.

  • Intolerance of the form “I hate brown people / muslims / women” should never be tolerated, because it is denigrating other human beings.

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

8 Likes
87

8 posts were split to a new topic: Discussions on fascist misogyny, race and identity politics

90
6 Likes
95

This is a great story, and I’d like to see that more often.
But hate speech and insult are not exactly the same things.

5 Likes
97

To restate myself “Part of the beauty of expression of ideas is that some who express an idea later may come to regret their ways because someone else took the time to care about them and talk to them.”

1 Like
105

Intersectionalists are welcome to discuss their feelings and experiences in as much breadth and depth and for every bit as long as they desire.

However, they do not impose upon me an obligation to listen in silence. If I want to find someone else whom I find more congenial to dialogue with, I’ll do it.

2 Likes
111

I agree with tolerate intolerance unless it attempts to exert will over others.

But at the same time I think everybody that voted for Trump would be well served by being banned from voting for 20 years or so as a cooling off, go sit in the corner measure.

2 Likes
113

This discussion has begun to veer more than a little from the original topic. I’ve cleaned it up a bit, but let’s please try and keep to the topic at hand while not going after the character of other posters, please. I don’t want to have to shut down the topic prematurely.

Thanks.

2 Likes
115

What are your thoughts on the piece from the Morning Star yesterday that points out that exam results for British white working class boys are improving, just not as fast as other groups?

Distribution of money seems to be the actual problem, just like it always seems to be.

8 Likes
118

Yes, you support hate speech by giving it a platform and considering it as a subjective opinion to be debated, good for you.

Lessering others is the violent act, as it has no other paths it leads to besides violence. Claiming that “only” speech is harmless is completely removing the speech from all context, and is not an argument in any way or form.

People who express hate speech incite violence, and should not be tolerated for doing so. The threat of social ostracization via punitive action by society is a much more effect and efficient means of convincing others to not partake in it, far more than kindly and gently asking nazis to not be nazis individually.

I don’t need to be directly affected by something to be against it because I’m not a self-involved sociopath.

Starting the false dichotomy count: 1.

Assertion without proof. Refute the statement.

Oh good grief. Who the hell cares.

Taking part in society means accepting societal norms. If you reject them, prepare to be disappointed.

Yep, not wanting hate speech to be spread around is “authoritarian”. Righto.

Go back up and fix your false dichotomy up there in your first paragraph before you start complaining about “rhetorical honesty”. Establishing a baseline for decency isn’t a True Scotsman argument.

4 Likes
119

These two statements do not follow from one another. Direct threats of violence are already illegal, for obvious reasons. I could well be ok with slightly expanding our US interpretation to include less direct threats of violence, but, as far as I know, there is no hate speech law out there that limits itself to threats of violence.

I recall a time a couple years ago when a relative of mine was in favor of a Canadian hate speech law being used to sue someone who published some anti-muslim propaganda. He was pretty pissed a few months later when the same hate speech law was used, in the same way, to shut down an Arab’s criticism of Israel for veering into anti-semitism.

Things like this lead naturally to laws like India’s laws to “protect religious sensibilities.” People there (of all religions, but especially the dominant one) use the law as a shield to prevent people pointing out all the evil shit they are justifying with their religion. I would say that anyone who can’t handle someone pointing out that their religion is a giant, steaming, stinking, pile of shit can get fucked.

On a similar note, think about the Muslim organizations in France, and the Catholic Church, who have used hate speech laws to sue Charlie Hebdo. Once again, I don’t care what your religion is, it’s shit, and, while you’re entitled to worship shit if that’s your thing, using the power of the state to try to stop people from pointing out that it’s shit is wrong. I’m not advocating violence against any member of any organized religion by saying it’s shit, it is an idiomatic and poetical expression of my political belief that, not only are most religious beliefs about the nature of the world based on complete bullshit, which we know better than now, but organized religion, in the world we live in now, causes a lot more harm than good. People are so uptight about their idols that anticlericalism is typically one of the first targets of hate speech laws.

Just another example that’s fresh in my mind is this one from an Austrian Green politician:
She sued to have Facebook take down posts calling her a “lousy traitor” and “corrupt bumpkin.”
I’m a registered Green here in the US, and I think this is 100% wrong. Whether or not I agree with them, those are legitimate expressions of political opinion, and using the law like this is clearly abuse, and in no way aligns with the idealized idea of hate speech laws that you are putting forth.

That’s just a few off the top of my head, but just think about what would happen if US Christians had access to a law about “protecting religious sensibilities.”

4 Likes
120

Please define “shared humanity”.

7 Likes
121

I support this. I often need to digest what I’ve been told in private anyway.

Absolutely true, but this elides the core issue. Is tolerance better viewed as a treaty? And when violated, what obligations does anyone really have to make nice with folk who want to oppress or even destroy minorities? It’s great if you have the spoons for that. But if you don’t?

Another thing:

  • a plagiarist may later regret his theft, but still bear legal consequences
  • a practical joker who causes a panic may later come to regret causing a panic in a crowd, and still face legal consequences
  • a man may later regret threatening his neighbor—even if he had no real plans to commit violence—but he will likely face some legal consequence for it nonetheless
  • someone may later regret their slander/libel, but they can still consequently wind up in court over it.

All of these have direct consequences.

We already have different categories for speech with consequences attached to each. The question is, why should hate speech should be regarded differently? Never mind insults. I’m talking about the kind of rhetoric which inspires someone to drive a car into protestors facing torches in a right wing rally or shoot people in public.

A racist may even come to regret their acts of racism, but there’s not much consequence beyond they might lose their job over it. That’s damaging, but it’s not like people can’t lose their job for any or even no reason anyway.

Companies have a real choice, here, but also the most leverage if people want to use their service. Uphold a treaty? Or carry wood and water for terrible people in the name of “free speech”?

Only one of those will utterly destroy a brand.

4 Likes
122

Let me guess:

“Stop calling attention to your supposedly oppressed status as a woman, a black person, a disabled person or whatever. What we share is that we’re all just humans! Calling attention to any disadvantages you have, and especially to any advantages I have, is just so divisive! Why, it’s downright confrontational!”

Shorter version:

“I’ll tolerate what you have to say, as long as you pretend that you’re no different from me.”

8 Likes
123

One must sacrifice part of one’s self to share in “humanity”. That’s what I fear, anyway.

4 Likes
124

Really? Which part?

125

You yourself may or may not have meant the “you” here personally towards me. Doesn’t really matter. In real life, the “platform” is simply life itself. The airport, supermarket, the open street, the bookstore, above international waters or wherever. Even in countries with hate speech laws.

There is a concept of verbal violence, there are violent words that arent direct incentives to action. Those do have emotional consequences. Personally I prefer not to dilute the word violence to homeopathic levels.

It does need to be said that the vast majority of people who express some hateful words are not in fact nazis of any stripe at all. Again I think its best not to dilute words.

Understandable, one doesn’t have to live next to a polluted river that catches fire to be against industrial pollution. I asked in order to better understand you as a person. In fact having been on the receiving end of hateful words does often change a person’s perspective of them. Some minorities pretty much anywhere in the world have to teach their children how to deal with those events. Been that way probably forever. Having experienced a thing does sometimes matter as to how one sees a thing. Really nothing to do with being a self-involved sociopath.

BTW popobawa4u won’t be replying to you as they are no longer present on the BBS.

1 Like
126
20 Likes
127

I hadn’t heard much about this story and my first thought was “why not just go somewhere else”. So I read up on what actually happened and what a total shit show it was.

Here’s the final ruling that goes into excruciating detail about what happened:

tl;dr not only did they refuse service based on orientation (which is already against the law), the store owners proceeded to humiliate and later dox the couple. And that was just the beginning.

10 Likes