3 ms·

I don't think you finished the article. > Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree t

I don't think you finished the article. > Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” So clearly, political correctness has a role to play. The question is, what is PC? The author explicitly suggests that freedom of speech should not apply to adherents of Salafi Islam. So how do we work with this? We have to talk about it, we have to recognize when people are being bigoted or sexist. Yes, enforcing social norms means innocent people may be harmed. But failing to enforce social norms also harms innocent people. I do think the author places undue focus on Islam - the West has bigger internal problems. Christian analogues of Salafism are more likely to get in a position to impose forcible conversion of Muslims than the reverse (as they have in the past.)

throwaway814 10y ago
I agree that they should be discussed, I just find the infrastructure for discussing the issues these days makes it much worse. My speech has certainly been improved by polite private reminders from friends over the years. For example "gay", in my hometown, is a ubiquitous synonym for "stupid", but obviously that's unacceptable in retrospect. When I moved away and someone politely noted it to me, I quickly fixed that. But people like these NBC commentators are going to permanently have their names associated with "sexist" as result #1 in Google. And if I ever tried to rationally discuss one of these topics with someone on Facebook, I would 100% be brigaded. Whereas in a group of live people, it's much easier to get to the root of an issue and find common ground. By the way, polite reminder from the HN guidelines: > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
- jolux 10y ago
  >But people like these NBC commentators are going to permanently have their names associated with "sexist" as result #1 in Google. And if they apologize for it, people will see they're mature enough to recognize when they've hurt someone and correct it.

throwaway814 10y ago

I agree that they should be discussed, I just find the infrastructure for discussing the issues these days makes it much worse. My speech has certainly been improved by polite private reminders from friends over the years. For example "gay", in my hometown, is a ubiquitous synonym for "stupid", but obviously that's unacceptable in retrospect. When I moved away and someone politely noted it to me, I quickly fixed that. But people like these NBC commentators are going to permanently have their names associated with "sexist" as result #1 in Google. And if I ever tried to rationally discuss one of these topics with someone on Facebook, I would 100% be brigaded. Whereas in a group of live people, it's much easier to get to the root of an issue and find common ground. By the way, polite reminder from the HN guidelines: > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

jolux 10y ago
>But people like these NBC commentators are going to permanently have their names associated with "sexist" as result #1 in Google. And if they apologize for it, people will see they're mature enough to recognize when they've hurt someone and correct it.