3 ms·

> that larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate speech? Let me fix that: > that multiple countries and international organizations categorize as

> that larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate speech? Let me fix that: > that multiple countries and international organizations categorize as hate speech? A casual reminder that when most think these open air rules are intended to stifle conversation it is generally for very clear legal and moral reasons. If you believe this is used by them to control people then you should also believe that a replacement should view this speech as antithetical to the existence of the free speech social company. It's one thing to ban talk about the platform you are talking on. It's not the same thing to ban intolerant behavior. It all leads back to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

sickofparadox 6y ago
I've seen this argument so many times, and it always strikes me that those who cite it often have either not read, or completely miss the point Karl Popper was trying to make. He goes so far as to even say: "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 unwise." I am quite sick of the usage of the paradox of tolerance being used as an attack against a free, pluralistic society.
- agloeregrets 6y ago
  Clearly you didn't quote the rest of that exact line for a reason. He goes on to explain what situation would call for use of suppression, for example, the use of violence or rejecting reason or logic by the intolerant (Which, obviously both are what happened in January 6th and in this narrative) ;) The ban isn't on conservative viewpoints, it is on intolerant speech that has no want to make a logical discussion and resorts to violence. Trust me, I'm using it correctly.
kofejnik 6y ago
Banning intolerant behavior means that whoever screams 'Intolerance!' the loudest wins
- agloeregrets 6y ago
  The funny thing about intolerance is that it's pretty easy to define: Unwillingness to accept(or tolerate) views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own. When we talk about intolerant behavior we are talking about actions and statements that are intended to demean others by design (and praise the inverse), this is pretty easy to define. Saying that a person's skin color or gender makes them lesser or to be despised is clearly intolerant, the person in context is clearly unable to change this as it is how they are. Whats funny about this is that the US Bill of rights is a statement on intolerance by design. It's meant to both give rights but also set tone.

sickofparadox 6y ago

I've seen this argument so many times, and it always strikes me that those who cite it often have either not read, or completely miss the point Karl Popper was trying to make. He goes so far as to even say: "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 unwise." I am quite sick of the usage of the paradox of tolerance being used as an attack against a free, pluralistic society.

agloeregrets 6y ago
Clearly you didn't quote the rest of that exact line for a reason. He goes on to explain what situation would call for use of suppression, for example, the use of violence or rejecting reason or logic by the intolerant (Which, obviously both are what happened in January 6th and in this narrative) ;) The ban isn't on conservative viewpoints, it is on intolerant speech that has no want to make a logical discussion and resorts to violence. Trust me, I'm using it correctly.

kofejnik 6y ago

Banning intolerant behavior means that whoever screams 'Intolerance!' the loudest wins

agloeregrets 6y ago
The funny thing about intolerance is that it's pretty easy to define: Unwillingness to accept(or tolerate) views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own. When we talk about intolerant behavior we are talking about actions and statements that are intended to demean others by design (and praise the inverse), this is pretty easy to define. Saying that a person's skin color or gender makes them lesser or to be despised is clearly intolerant, the person in context is clearly unable to change this as it is how they are. Whats funny about this is that the US Bill of rights is a statement on intolerance by design. It's meant to both give rights but also set tone.