4 ms·
> Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant (e.g. nazis/terrorists) No. They are precisely who we should tolerate. That's what free speech right
by eighthnate 9y ago
> Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant (e.g. nazis/terrorists)
No. They are precisely who we should tolerate. That's what free speech rights exist to protect.
We shouldn't tolerate violence, but we should tolerate speech.
> See how Google/YouTube/Twitter did mass bans and ended up including people like Jordan Peterson.
But according to the left, peterson is an intolerant person.
This is why we have principles and rights. The first thing everyone used to learn in a philosophy class was that if the neo-nazis don't have free speech, then nobody has free speech.
You can disagree with neo-nazis. That's your right. But if their speech is curtailed, then nobody has speech because speech no longer is a right, it's a privilege that depends on the whims of the offended.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago> We shouldn't tolerate violence, but we should tolerate speech. Yet we already don't tolerate violent speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... It is crazy to me that a (if I might assume) straight white non-Jewish and non-Muslim man living in a like society will speak authoritatively about what kind of speech should be allowed. Go live in a society in which you are the minority where a significant and growing segment of society hates you, and then tell me what kind of speech we should allow.
- ebfd 9y agoThat's essentially the point; free speech protects the rights of unpopular minorities. Why would a gay Jewish, Muslim, woman want straight white men to enact limitations on their speech?