4 ms·

I never heard if them before but your rights depend on your ability to tolerate others' right. Today it's right wing conspiracy theories, tomorrow it's a left w

I never heard if them before but your rights depend on your ability to tolerate others' right. Today it's right wing conspiracy theories, tomorrow it's a left wing civil rights movement like BLM activism. Payment processors acting as henchmen for the ruling class to decide who should and should not be tolerated is as 1984 dystopian as it gets. I don't know about you but I never voted for visa to legislate, judge or enforce any laws. Rights mean nothing if arbitrary groups of people can collaboratr to prevent your free excercise of those rights. Visa itself has little to no rights, only privileges afforded to it by the public to operate a business.

tedivm 6y ago
The slippery slope fallacy is exactly that- a fallacy. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is also one that's been explored and debunked quite a bit.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  No, I did not say tolerate intolerance. You must tolerate intolerant free speech! Actions are a different ballgame,and even then democratically elected institutions not random corporations get to enforce that rule. And by tolerate I mean don't kill people or socially isolate them and their family from obtaining basic necessities of life. If you can't do that then I cannot support protection of any rights you have at all. I do not wish to live to see more world wars and genocides. Matter if fact, I am saying that your actions of supporting harmful retaliation against free speech is an intolerant action that shouldn't be tolerated, so you're sort of speaking against yourself except you don't see your actions as intolerant.
  - igetspam 6y ago
    You're wrong. Social sanctions are the exact right response to repugnant behavior. If you peddle hate speech, then being labelled appropriately and pushed into isolation is a just response. You are allowed to say and think what you want and we are allowed to shun you. Both of these things are inline with individual rights and freedoms. People seem to think that "free speech" is a license to be an A-hole but free speech comes with consequences. Cause and affect are natural laws and the response to sheltering Nazis is often harsh and sometimes violent. Being shunned and losing access to a service provided by a private business feels like a pretty light sentence.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  The slippery slope fallacy is "this is the first step, and further steps will be easier, so we shouldn't take that step". Sometimes that is true, often it is not. Free speech is a category where there really does seem to be a slippery slope. Infrastructure built to combat child pornography is now used to block porn in general in the UK, for instance. In the US, it's used to block sites infringing copyright. If that first step hadn't been taken - if providers hadn't been required to build that infrastructure for CP - it would have been far more difficult to force them to create it for porn or piracy. But once "filter things we don't like" was accepted, expanding the list of disliked things was far easier than setting up the filter in the first place. As for tolerating intolerance - I personally always find it depressing when people use this to advocate for silencing Nazis, or white supremacists, or racists, or people that happen to be called those things. Here's a more complete quote of Popper: > Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Nazis, despite what many seem to think, do NOT have the power to suppress speech with violence in the US, or Germany, or anywhere else. Popular opinion is also firmly against such philosophies. But there IS a philosophy in the US that fits the latter part of his description - one that is not prepared to meet others in a rational argument, and instead denounces all argument. One that responds to speech they do not like with force aimed to silence that speech. And yes, one that encourages the use of physical force as well. What else is "Punch a Nazi", if not responding to speech with force? You won't see Visa blacklisting them anytime soon though, because they ARE Visa. And Mastercard. And numerous other organizations across the world. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

tedivm 6y ago

The slippery slope fallacy is exactly that- a fallacy. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is also one that's been explored and debunked quite a bit.

badrabbit 6y ago
No, I did not say tolerate intolerance. You must tolerate intolerant free speech! Actions are a different ballgame,and even then democratically elected institutions not random corporations get to enforce that rule. And by tolerate I mean don't kill people or socially isolate them and their family from obtaining basic necessities of life. If you can't do that then I cannot support protection of any rights you have at all. I do not wish to live to see more world wars and genocides. Matter if fact, I am saying that your actions of supporting harmful retaliation against free speech is an intolerant action that shouldn't be tolerated, so you're sort of speaking against yourself except you don't see your actions as intolerant.
- igetspam 6y ago
  You're wrong. Social sanctions are the exact right response to repugnant behavior. If you peddle hate speech, then being labelled appropriately and pushed into isolation is a just response. You are allowed to say and think what you want and we are allowed to shun you. Both of these things are inline with individual rights and freedoms. People seem to think that "free speech" is a license to be an A-hole but free speech comes with consequences. Cause and affect are natural laws and the response to sheltering Nazis is often harsh and sometimes violent. Being shunned and losing access to a service provided by a private business feels like a pretty light sentence.
DuskStar 6y ago
The slippery slope fallacy is "this is the first step, and further steps will be easier, so we shouldn't take that step". Sometimes that is true, often it is not. Free speech is a category where there really does seem to be a slippery slope. Infrastructure built to combat child pornography is now used to block porn in general in the UK, for instance. In the US, it's used to block sites infringing copyright. If that first step hadn't been taken - if providers hadn't been required to build that infrastructure for CP - it would have been far more difficult to force them to create it for porn or piracy. But once "filter things we don't like" was accepted, expanding the list of disliked things was far easier than setting up the filter in the first place. As for tolerating intolerance - I personally always find it depressing when people use this to advocate for silencing Nazis, or white supremacists, or racists, or people that happen to be called those things. Here's a more complete quote of Popper: > Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Nazis, despite what many seem to think, do NOT have the power to suppress speech with violence in the US, or Germany, or anywhere else. Popular opinion is also firmly against such philosophies. But there IS a philosophy in the US that fits the latter part of his description - one that is not prepared to meet others in a rational argument, and instead denounces all argument. One that responds to speech they do not like with force aimed to silence that speech. And yes, one that encourages the use of physical force as well. What else is "Punch a Nazi", if not responding to speech with force? You won't see Visa blacklisting them anytime soon though, because they ARE Visa. And Mastercard. And numerous other organizations across the world. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.