4 ms·

> Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? Because like any other law

> Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like: "Parents must feed their children" Into a ridiculous alike of: "We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children" Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech. The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question: 2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry. Questions?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? Yes. > In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections. > Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them. I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps. I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >a reasonable set of requirements OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people? >Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. I said nothing along those lines. >how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones I said nothing of the sort. >maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated? I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. I think telling people they can't express their beliefs or advocate for what they see as their own interests is the first step toward a shooting war. If you tell people they can't express their beliefs, you are telling them you can't live peacefully alongside them as countrymen. In the case of many of the people you are calling intolerant, I don't believe that's how it is.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

>Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.

FussyZeus 7y ago
> Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? Yes. > In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections. > Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them. I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps. I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >a reasonable set of requirements OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people? >Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. I said nothing along those lines. >how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones I said nothing of the sort. >maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated? I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. I think telling people they can't express their beliefs or advocate for what they see as their own interests is the first step toward a shooting war. If you tell people they can't express their beliefs, you are telling them you can't live peacefully alongside them as countrymen. In the case of many of the people you are calling intolerant, I don't believe that's how it is.