3 ms·

So intolerance exists only through violence? That seems wrong on its face.

by skj 11y ago

CamperBob2 11y ago
How so? If I don't lift a finger against you (and that includes voting to use government-based force against you), then why is it important for you to control what opinions I can express?
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  It's not about controlling which opinions you can express, it's about how to react to them. It's possible for both of us to be intolerant without resorting to physical violence or government-based force. If you express an intolerant opinion, it's important for me to express that I think you're full of shit and why, and that I won't tolerate it, without physically lifting a finger against you, or otherwise trying to destroy your life or well being. That's how and why freedom of speech works. It doesn't indemnify you from the consequences of expressing your opinions. I am fully justified in expressing my intolerance of your intolerance without resorting to violence. I'm not going to wait for you to go as far as to hit me in the face or spend money on a propaganda campaign that's actively trying to destroy my marriage (for example), before I verbally express my intolerance of something you said or did. But if you donated to a political campaign that results in destroying my marriage, or if you're the executive director of an organization dedicated to that cause, and I find out that you've been having gay sex orgies on the low down, or cheating on your wife on Ashley Madison, then it's totally justified for me to publicly out you, and if your wife decides to divorce you or FRC decides to fire you upon learning that, then it's between you and them, and what I did was totally justified, no matter how much you feel like playing the victim.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    I don't see where we disagree. Like voting for an intolerant political candidate, I'd consider donating to them to be use of force. It's no longer a matter of simple "intolerance" once that happens. At that point I've lifted a finger, so to speak, just as if I'd paid a thug to beat up some gays outside a bar. Simply expressing verbal support for the candidate, on the other hand, wouldn't be an instance of the use of force. The passage from Karl Popper you quoted contains the problematic language, "But we should claim the right to suppress (utterances of intolerance) if necessary even by force." That's where an arbitrary exercise of unequal power comes in. Unless Popper is claiming that an external source of morality exists to decide who's allowed to respond to speech with violence and who is not, he's on very shaky philosophical ground.

So intolerance exists only through violence? That seems wrong on its face.

by skj 11y ago

So intolerance exists only through violence? That seems wrong on its face.

How so? If I don't lift a finger against you (and that includes voting to use government-based force against you), then why is it important for you to control what opinions I can express?

DonHopkins 11y ago
It's not about controlling which opinions you can express, it's about how to react to them. It's possible for both of us to be intolerant without resorting to physical violence or government-based force. If you express an intolerant opinion, it's important for me to express that I think you're full of shit and why, and that I won't tolerate it, without physically lifting a finger against you, or otherwise trying to destroy your life or well being. That's how and why freedom of speech works. It doesn't indemnify you from the consequences of expressing your opinions. I am fully justified in expressing my intolerance of your intolerance without resorting to violence. I'm not going to wait for you to go as far as to hit me in the face or spend money on a propaganda campaign that's actively trying to destroy my marriage (for example), before I verbally express my intolerance of something you said or did. But if you donated to a political campaign that results in destroying my marriage, or if you're the executive director of an organization dedicated to that cause, and I find out that you've been having gay sex orgies on the low down, or cheating on your wife on Ashley Madison, then it's totally justified for me to publicly out you, and if your wife decides to divorce you or FRC decides to fire you upon learning that, then it's between you and them, and what I did was totally justified, no matter how much you feel like playing the victim.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  I don't see where we disagree. Like voting for an intolerant political candidate, I'd consider donating to them to be use of force. It's no longer a matter of simple "intolerance" once that happens. At that point I've lifted a finger, so to speak, just as if I'd paid a thug to beat up some gays outside a bar. Simply expressing verbal support for the candidate, on the other hand, wouldn't be an instance of the use of force. The passage from Karl Popper you quoted contains the problematic language, "But we should claim the right to suppress (utterances of intolerance) if necessary even by force." That's where an arbitrary exercise of unequal power comes in. Unless Popper is claiming that an external source of morality exists to decide who's allowed to respond to speech with violence and who is not, he's on very shaky philosophical ground.