4 ms·
One's life is not directly threatened by intolerance when it comes strictly to speech. It is only action taken upon that speech (or imminent action caused by it
by striking 9y ago
One's life is not directly threatened by intolerance when it comes strictly to speech. It is only action taken upon that speech (or imminent action caused by it) that threatens lives.
And preventing the restriction of ideas such that "augmenting intelligence" or "radical life extension" are not suddenly unspeakable is very much unlike being intolerant of others anyway.
Self-preservation is important, but it's also important for people to avoid being drunk on their own self-righteousness.
- dnsco 9y agoAnil's argument was that tolerating hatred of groups emboldens those who would be violent against those groups. In that, I agree violent speech threatens the lives of those who it is is violent against. There also degrees to this. There are certainly instances of people being drunk on their own self righteousness. - If I were a non-christian and you were to wish me "Merry Christmas", if I took the interpretation that you were threatening my life that would be unreasonable. - If you were to announce "I'm not killing anybody, but I pray that all the gays are killed" I think my understanding of that as endangering my life (as a gay person) is totally reasonable. This is a nuanced conversation, it helps to remember that different people have different things at stake, and it's difficult to say things that apply to every level.
- QAPereo 9y agoOrganized violence begins with the organization, and why most countries in the modern world have some provision to prevent inciting violence, riot, etc.