5 ms·

You misunderstand the spirit of the paradox. A society that is tolerant without limit is eventually overrun by the intolerance it seeks to live side by side wit

by castis 9y ago

You misunderstand the spirit of the paradox. A society that is tolerant without limit is eventually overrun by the intolerance it seeks to live side by side with.

mejin 9y ago
How about a society that has a law embedded into their Constitution stating that free speech is a right no matter who the president is?
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You are right, it doesn't say that. It does imply it, at least in my opinion. See, free expression should be a social ideal. Free speech should be something we strive to allow, even to facilitate. And yes, yes that includes speech from hateful Nazis. Please keep in mind that Nazis would absolutely harm me, if given the chance to do so. I'm quite distinctly not white. But, the goal should be allowing even the deplorable to make use of their basic human rights. The Constitution says what the government cannot do. It should also serve as a baseline as to how we should model our society. We should facilitate free speech, freedom of and from religion, security of our papers, innocence as the assumption, etc... Well, we should if we care about fostering a society where people can enjoy their liberties. Rights shouldn't just be allowed for those we approve of. If they are not allowed for everyone, they are privileges and not rights.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback. That's just shamelessly trying to get something in through the back door when it won't fit in through the front door. "Oh, the _government_ isn't oppressing you but they'll just look the other way while businesses and vigilantes do it to you instead. nudge, nudge, wink, wink" And what will you do when the day comes that your political opponents come to power (elections haven't been that favorable to the left recently, in case you hadn't noticed) and find you've left them this nice, neat, and completely "legal" mechanism to wreck your lives?
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      I'm just telling you what rights the Constitution grants and what rights it doesn't. The government's job is to enforce laws that are on the books. If someone commits a crime, whether they are a business or a vigilante group, they will be persecuted. Attacking cops and breaking store windows are crimes. Running over counter-protestors is a crime. Firing people because of their religion or skin color is a crime. Banning users for breaking your terms of service is NOT a crime. The reason is simple: no one owes you a platform from which you can express your opinions, regardless of what those opinions are.
- castis 9y ago
  What about it?
- CalChris 9y ago
  This wasn't a free speech case.
Clubber 9y ago
Can you site an example? I can see where tolerance of something like murder, but not political ideas.
- argv_empty 9y ago
  What do you do when murder is a political idea?
  - Clubber 9y ago
    It's easy to distinguish them. One is thoughts (we don't arrest and convict people for thoughts) and one is action. When it comes to something like inciting a riot though, that's a fairly grey area. I would guess it is mostly used to squelch unpopular speech.
    - argv_empty 9y ago
      we don't arrest and convict people for thoughts If whether they're getting arrested is your concern, there's no need to worry. Simply being a white supremacist doesn't get you arrested. Though it looks to me like the thread started over the question of what sort of non-government concession a tolerant society owes to white supremacists and the like.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        I believe the assertion was that a tolerant society succumbs to the political ideas they tolerate. The OP seems to be arguing that tolerating distasteful political ideas will inherently lead to society adopting those distasteful political ideas which ends in it's ruin. I find that assessment difficult to swallow and was asking for a citation or example of when this happened. I also find that idea dangerous, because in the US political power changes every 4-12 years and ideas you might hold dear may be deemed distasteful. Of course, I'm willing to discuss the merits of that idea rather than just banning it.
        9y ago
snarf21 9y ago
This is such an interesting topic and so hard to draw the line the right spot. The biggest question is always "Who gets to say?". If you leave it up to whoever is in charge right now, they have all the power. Slippery slope and all that... I've come to the (current) belief that these idiots have the right to free speech even if I hate it. Outlawing it won't stop their bigotry, just take it underground and give them another thing to blame on the "bad" people. I also think although they should be able to have their rallies and websites, we also have free speech to identify and make public their identities and call their families and employers and ask them if they support these ideas too. Some people at Charlottesville were dumb founded when they got fired. I think this approach does a better job of saying this line of thinking is not accepted here but maintaining people's right to free speech. I also personally believe you aren't going hate by yelling at people that they are dumb. Cliche but you only stop hate with love and familiarity. I also think there is a topic in this discussion that doesn't get enough mention. I personally feel this issue is as much an economic one as ideological. People don't have jobs and Trump's platform gives them someone to blame. It is the immigrants who stole your jobs and we are going to bring all the jobs back to the US. We need a wall to keep out all these "bad" people. We are going to do everything America first. This rhetoric give people a pass. People who feel they have nothing left to lose are dangerous. Even more so when someone else is giving them a target to blame.
- rtpg 9y ago
  There's definitely an... Economical or "social outcast" angle that produces a good chunk of these people. You're stuck in a shitty environment , so you find one where you can feel better. This is also a pattern seen with gangs. RE legality though: meth and tabacco are basically the same level of addictiveness, but tabacco is more preponderant because it's legal. Not to say that we should "make illegal speech" to deal with this problem, but no-platforming racists (as private citizens) likely helps fight against racism. It's not ideologically inconsistent to be for free speech but not let klansmen into your home. And there are more than enough service providers for these people, you don't have to serve them. They found a replacement for Cloudflare quickly in this example.

by castis 9y ago

You misunderstand the spirit of the paradox. A society that is tolerant without limit is eventually overrun by the intolerance it seeks to live side by side with.

mejin 9y ago

How about a society that has a law embedded into their Constitution stating that free speech is a right no matter who the president is?

enraged_camel 9y ago
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback.
- KGIII 9y ago
  You are right, it doesn't say that. It does imply it, at least in my opinion. See, free expression should be a social ideal. Free speech should be something we strive to allow, even to facilitate. And yes, yes that includes speech from hateful Nazis. Please keep in mind that Nazis would absolutely harm me, if given the chance to do so. I'm quite distinctly not white. But, the goal should be allowing even the deplorable to make use of their basic human rights. The Constitution says what the government cannot do. It should also serve as a baseline as to how we should model our society. We should facilitate free speech, freedom of and from religion, security of our papers, innocence as the assumption, etc... Well, we should if we care about fostering a society where people can enjoy their liberties. Rights shouldn't just be allowed for those we approve of. If they are not allowed for everyone, they are privileges and not rights.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback. That's just shamelessly trying to get something in through the back door when it won't fit in through the front door. "Oh, the _government_ isn't oppressing you but they'll just look the other way while businesses and vigilantes do it to you instead. nudge, nudge, wink, wink" And what will you do when the day comes that your political opponents come to power (elections haven't been that favorable to the left recently, in case you hadn't noticed) and find you've left them this nice, neat, and completely "legal" mechanism to wreck your lives?
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    I'm just telling you what rights the Constitution grants and what rights it doesn't. The government's job is to enforce laws that are on the books. If someone commits a crime, whether they are a business or a vigilante group, they will be persecuted. Attacking cops and breaking store windows are crimes. Running over counter-protestors is a crime. Firing people because of their religion or skin color is a crime. Banning users for breaking your terms of service is NOT a crime. The reason is simple: no one owes you a platform from which you can express your opinions, regardless of what those opinions are.
castis 9y ago
What about it?
CalChris 9y ago
This wasn't a free speech case.

Clubber 9y ago

Can you site an example? I can see where tolerance of something like murder, but not political ideas.

argv_empty 9y ago
What do you do when murder is a political idea?
- Clubber 9y ago
  It's easy to distinguish them. One is thoughts (we don't arrest and convict people for thoughts) and one is action. When it comes to something like inciting a riot though, that's a fairly grey area. I would guess it is mostly used to squelch unpopular speech.
  - argv_empty 9y ago
    we don't arrest and convict people for thoughts If whether they're getting arrested is your concern, there's no need to worry. Simply being a white supremacist doesn't get you arrested. Though it looks to me like the thread started over the question of what sort of non-government concession a tolerant society owes to white supremacists and the like.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      I believe the assertion was that a tolerant society succumbs to the political ideas they tolerate. The OP seems to be arguing that tolerating distasteful political ideas will inherently lead to society adopting those distasteful political ideas which ends in it's ruin. I find that assessment difficult to swallow and was asking for a citation or example of when this happened. I also find that idea dangerous, because in the US political power changes every 4-12 years and ideas you might hold dear may be deemed distasteful. Of course, I'm willing to discuss the merits of that idea rather than just banning it.
      - 9y ago

snarf21 9y ago

This is such an interesting topic and so hard to draw the line the right spot. The biggest question is always "Who gets to say?". If you leave it up to whoever is in charge right now, they have all the power. Slippery slope and all that... I've come to the (current) belief that these idiots have the right to free speech even if I hate it. Outlawing it won't stop their bigotry, just take it underground and give them another thing to blame on the "bad" people. I also think although they should be able to have their rallies and websites, we also have free speech to identify and make public their identities and call their families and employers and ask them if they support these ideas too. Some people at Charlottesville were dumb founded when they got fired. I think this approach does a better job of saying this line of thinking is not accepted here but maintaining people's right to free speech. I also personally believe you aren't going hate by yelling at people that they are dumb. Cliche but you only stop hate with love and familiarity. I also think there is a topic in this discussion that doesn't get enough mention. I personally feel this issue is as much an economic one as ideological. People don't have jobs and Trump's platform gives them someone to blame. It is the immigrants who stole your jobs and we are going to bring all the jobs back to the US. We need a wall to keep out all these "bad" people. We are going to do everything America first. This rhetoric give people a pass. People who feel they have nothing left to lose are dangerous. Even more so when someone else is giving them a target to blame.

rtpg 9y ago
There's definitely an... Economical or "social outcast" angle that produces a good chunk of these people. You're stuck in a shitty environment , so you find one where you can feel better. This is also a pattern seen with gangs. RE legality though: meth and tabacco are basically the same level of addictiveness, but tabacco is more preponderant because it's legal. Not to say that we should "make illegal speech" to deal with this problem, but no-platforming racists (as private citizens) likely helps fight against racism. It's not ideologically inconsistent to be for free speech but not let klansmen into your home. And there are more than enough service providers for these people, you don't have to serve them. They found a replacement for Cloudflare quickly in this example.