4 ms·

People have limited tolerance of free speech even when free speech is more tolerant than their own opinions.

• klyrs 6y ago
  > What is up with people just ignoring the content of the message that they are replying to and either repeating what they said before or reply to something that was never said? This seems to be more and more common in HN these days.
  • dependenttypes 6y ago
    Yes? What does this have to do with my post? Do you enjoy going through people's posts and making random quotes that do not fit the current topic?
    • klyrs 6y ago
      You ducked my point entirely.
      • dependenttypes 6y ago
        Sure, I was interested in addressing the "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." specifically rather than your main argument. I do not think that I repeated any argument nor replied to something that was never said nor do I think that this debunks your main argument.
        • klyrs 6y ago
          There's a razor in use; I advocate tolerance of speech up to the line of intolerant speech. Yes, people are intolerant of all sorts of speech and expression which are perfectly harmless and protected speech. E.g. gay people kissing in a movie is "not family friendly" whereas straight people kissing is downright expected. Or, people being harrassed for wearing their symbols of faith in public, etc. That's speech and expression that aren't harmful, though they do offend bigots -- there's no demonstrable harm in those expressions, and the offended can piss right off. (edit: harrassing is not free speech; wearing symbols of faith is) What I was referring to as intolerance is hate speech. Calling for violence, denegrating a class of people, etc. There, real and demonstrable harm is done. You "debunked" the least generous interpretation of my statement, and thereby completely avoided the point.