3 ms·

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

by Clubber 9y ago

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.
      - argv_empty 9y ago
        It's a popular idea that there are two legitimate sides to every issue. It's also a wrong idea. "Tolerance" as a societal ideal does not require treating ethnic cleansing as a legitimate goal, a respect-worthy political platform, etc. This comment thread was initially about the Daily Stormer, not something that is merely "distasteful."
        pdkl95 9y ago
        Unfortunately a lot of people fall for this technique. People that are generally educated and willing to argue back with rational/logical arguments seem to be particularly susceptible. The problem is assuming the person trying to introduce an inappropriate, reprehensible, hateful idea is trying to win an argument. They expect to lose the current argument, nor are they actually interested succeeding in the "marketplace of ideas". The point is to get everyone talking about the meme until it becomes a legitimate "side". To in introduce humans to a radical idea that is far outside what they would normally consider acceptable, you have to reframe the idea and/or their beliefs. The easiest way to do that - which marketing departments have known for a long time ("branding") - is by repeated exposure. If enough people talk about e.g. ethnic cleansing in a way that gets you to repeated argue back about how they are "obviously wrong", you will eventually believe it's a legitimate political point of view that people might have.
        Clubber 9y ago
        Nobody said anything about treating ethnic cleansing as a legitimate goal or a respect-worthy political platform except you. That is a huge red herring and it's disingenuous to associate that with an discomfort with banning speech and ideas, particularly in a country where it explicitly lists that freedom in the first amendment of the constitution. Look, one of the people you replied to was talking about branding and all that. The second you go on a crusade and talking about banning people with ideas, the stronger their brand becomes. I haven't thought about Neo Nazis in 20+ years, that is until everyone started talking about banning their sites. It's not the people who tolerate their speech and ignore it that gives these people's ideas weight, it's the people who demand a moral crusade by silencing them that do. It's true irony that in the effort to silence distasteful ideas, people are giving those ideas much more relevance than if they had done what we always do. Allow people to say stupid things, ignore them, then wave as they scurry off under the rock of which they came.
- averagewall 9y ago
  It always is in the US because there are always wars with each party making their own promises about who they plan to murder.
cc81 9y ago
I would assume it means tolerating them as giving them the same platforms and resources as anyone else. So news shows inviting Nazis for them to explain their views, companies treating Nazi symbols the same way as all other symbols etc. You can still have free speech in the constitution while society as a whole is intolerant towards those ideas.
pjc50 9y ago
A more recent example than the Nazis is Rwanda, where hate media played a key role in causing the genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

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.
    - argv_empty 9y ago
      It's a popular idea that there are two legitimate sides to every issue. It's also a wrong idea. "Tolerance" as a societal ideal does not require treating ethnic cleansing as a legitimate goal, a respect-worthy political platform, etc. This comment thread was initially about the Daily Stormer, not something that is merely "distasteful."
      - pdkl95 9y ago
        Unfortunately a lot of people fall for this technique. People that are generally educated and willing to argue back with rational/logical arguments seem to be particularly susceptible. The problem is assuming the person trying to introduce an inappropriate, reprehensible, hateful idea is trying to win an argument. They expect to lose the current argument, nor are they actually interested succeeding in the "marketplace of ideas". The point is to get everyone talking about the meme until it becomes a legitimate "side". To in introduce humans to a radical idea that is far outside what they would normally consider acceptable, you have to reframe the idea and/or their beliefs. The easiest way to do that - which marketing departments have known for a long time ("branding") - is by repeated exposure. If enough people talk about e.g. ethnic cleansing in a way that gets you to repeated argue back about how they are "obviously wrong", you will eventually believe it's a legitimate political point of view that people might have.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        Nobody said anything about treating ethnic cleansing as a legitimate goal or a respect-worthy political platform except you. That is a huge red herring and it's disingenuous to associate that with an discomfort with banning speech and ideas, particularly in a country where it explicitly lists that freedom in the first amendment of the constitution. Look, one of the people you replied to was talking about branding and all that. The second you go on a crusade and talking about banning people with ideas, the stronger their brand becomes. I haven't thought about Neo Nazis in 20+ years, that is until everyone started talking about banning their sites. It's not the people who tolerate their speech and ignore it that gives these people's ideas weight, it's the people who demand a moral crusade by silencing them that do. It's true irony that in the effort to silence distasteful ideas, people are giving those ideas much more relevance than if they had done what we always do. Allow people to say stupid things, ignore them, then wave as they scurry off under the rock of which they came.
averagewall 9y ago
It always is in the US because there are always wars with each party making their own promises about who they plan to murder.

cc81 9y ago

I would assume it means tolerating them as giving them the same platforms and resources as anyone else. So news shows inviting Nazis for them to explain their views, companies treating Nazi symbols the same way as all other symbols etc. You can still have free speech in the constitution while society as a whole is intolerant towards those ideas.

pjc50 9y ago

A more recent example than the Nazis is Rwanda, where hate media played a key role in causing the genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...