6 ms·

In a tolerant society, should we tolerate intolerance? I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.

chrissnell 6y ago
We should tolerate all speech. That doesn't mean you can't scream and call it hate speech, but do so from your own platform.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  What about libel/slander? What about child pornography? What about doxxing? Surely you agree we have to draw the line _somewhere_, even if you disagree with where we currently draw it?
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > What about child pornography? It's amusing how frequently this comes up. If someone distributes child pornography, arrest them using the existing laws of the land. "But what if it spreads from there?" I hear someone saying. Well, they're still posting illegal content, so arrest them too. It's silly to assume that the freedom of speech implies some kind of inherent free pass from consequences of your speech.
    - danaris 6y ago
      I think what you're missing in this is that the only reason that stands is because images of child pornography, which would otherwise be considered protected speech just like any other image, have been declared to be illegal. It's not that "there are laws against child pornography, which are completely separate from the debate about free speech." Laws against the production of (actual) child pornography are irrelevant to the debate about free speech. Laws against its distribution are absolutely relevant, because "distribution of child pornography" is just a kind of speech. (To be clear, I oppose free-speech maximalism in general, and have no trouble with the idea of laws criminalizing the distribution of child pornography.)
      - falcolas 6y ago
        Here's the problem with this method of thinking: Any speech could be considered to be illegal by somebody. Better to create technology to let people talk, and leave the enforcement of laws to the individual countries. Attempting to pre-emptively censor speech because it's potentially illegal somewhere results in no speech.
        danaris 6y ago
        ...I'm literally responding to you dismissing the question of whether one should view blocking distributing child pornography as being a restriction on free speech by saying (paraphrased) "there are laws against distributing child pornography, so it must not be a restriction on free speech." I was merely pointing out that, if we want to have a discussion about what types of speech should and shouldn't be allowed, we need to be clear with ourselves and each other about what actually constitutes speech, and restrictions thereupon. I'm having a hard time telling where you're reading in my post a suggestion that (e.g.), because criticism of the Thai monarchy is strictly prohibited in Thailand, we should technologically restrict such speech in the US.
        falcolas 6y ago
        To my mind, we're having a disagreement on a fundamental point: I believe that just because some forms of speech has consequences, that doesn't inherently restrict speech. What I'm reading of your stance is that since there are consequences for some forms of speech, this forms an implied and mandatory restriction on speech. The difference is subtle, but it's leading to us talking past each other, particularly when it comes to discussing technology that enables free speech. Unfortunately, this difference is not something I feel I can resolve on this forum. Good luck!
        danaris 6y ago
        There are natural consequences of speech, and there are legal consequences of speech. Natural consequences are things like if I say "I hate people who wear hats," and I get an internet mob coming after me to defend hats. Legal consequences would be if I happen to wander into a jurisdiction that has outlawed badmouthing hat-wearers, and I get arrested. Legal consequences of speech are restrictions on free speech, because they are something humans specifically and deliberately chose and could un-choose. Natural consequences are just that: natural.
  - chrissnell 6y ago
    Sure, draw it along established legal lines, but stay away from silencing things that you simply disagree with.
    - dwaltrip 6y ago
      You’ve just significantly backpedaled from your comment right above...?
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      This is a straw man. No one is censoring flat-earthers. We’re not burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft or fucking stuffed animals or engaging in BDSM. This is about murder and terrorism. Be clear about what you’re defending if you’re so proud of it
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    Has anyone, anywhere, ever suggested that child pornography is 'speech' let alone 'free speech'? It seems bizarre to include in this list.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      It's typically included on lists because of the implications. One either takes the position (1) child pornography should be allowed to be shared, (2) child pornography should be suppressed, but may be shared, or (3) child pornography cannot be allowed to be shared. (3) obviously requires very different technical solutions (like: no private encryption, ever) than (1).
      - tanseydavid 6y ago
        I fail to see any relevance to a discussion centered around debating implications and boundaries of 'free speech.'
        ethbr0 6y ago
        Do you think I should be allowed to possess encryption, through which I could share child pornography with others, without being detected?
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      Well, if you create a message board that accepts images, and you make it so there is no technical way to remove those images, you are implicitly including child porn in your definition of free speech.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      That sounds suspiciously similar to the historical argument about pornography in general: no one could defend that; it's bizarre to bring up.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    A key line in most societies seems "imminent or attributable harm." As in "we (as a tolerant society) can tolerate free speech up and to the point that someone else is harmed."
- zaik 6y ago
  So I can't call something hate speech on your free speech platform?
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
  So if I effectively monopolise free speech by drowning out all other speech, that's ok?
jimbob45 6y ago
Every piece of speech is intolerant to someone out there. The mistake is thinking that any bit of speech is empirically tolerant or intolerant.
- haram_masala 6y ago
  This is an interesting line of thought, which I don't know if I agree with or not. It might be worth exploring the contrapositive: "If a piece of speech is tolerable to at least someone, then it shouldn't be censored." And that raises an absurd but still interesting thought experiment: if by some process, someone is able to create a statement that is intolerable to every single person on Earth, would it be okay to censor it?
allears 6y ago
Karl Popper explored this idea extensively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- nerdponx 6y ago
  It's worth copying and pasting the quote used on Wikipedia, because it actually espouses a very strong view that I think many Americans, even moderate ones, might find surprising: 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal ...
  - effie 6y ago
    Unfortunately, this argument and its result is not a good guide, because it is vague of what is "intolerant" and easily gets interpreted as fighting fascism with fascism. In order to win, we must become the enemy, because we are better. No thanks.
    - wrycoder 6y ago
      Popper is clear. He’s not willing to extend tolerance to completely intolerant people.
3np 6y ago
To make an analogy to the non-digital world I think it's apt: I don't think it should be tolerated in the public forum (e.g. overt racism espoused or advertised in cities or on national television). We also have laws against discrimination applying to private businesses, which I think is a decent balance. I don't think it's desirable to prohibit individuals from gathering in private and exchanging intolerant thought, though. Something like this falls under that IMO.
nostromo 6y ago
Yes, of course. This is presented as if it's some deep philosophical conundrum, when it's not. An example: I'm gay and I have had friends that didn't agree with me in supporting gay marriage. One was an ultra-orthodox Jew that was my coworker, and we would disagree on just about everything politically, but we still managed to tolerate each other and even become friends. This is what should happen in a tolerant society. Should we ban guys like him from Twitter if he decides to tweet against gay marriage? No, we shouldn't. We should tolerate his intolerance and have an open and honest debate.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Counterpoint: you seem to have accidentally strawmanned the opposing argument into a situation where the worst outcome is polite disagreement where you still can "become friends". I'd like to hear your opinions on my steelmanned version of the hypothetical: You meet somebody that is adamantly homophobic. They use their speech to rally others and take political action against gay people. They make same-sex marriage illegal (or block it from becoming legal). Maybe, they're extra successful, and can even manage to make gay sex or just being gay illegal, forcing you to pretend to be straight. Oh, this person also is your boss. They know you're gay, and they fire you from your job in the height of a pandemic where people are already having trouble finding work. When you get home, you find out their friend is your landlord and you're being evicted from your apartment in 30 days. Admittedly, this is somewhat of an extreme example, at least in my country in modern times, but go back 100 years and this is close to reality - and there's no strong evidence I'm aware of that suggests progress in these types of social justice causes can only be made forwards.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Having tolerance for speech we don’t agree with does not mean we need to tolerate harassment, eviction, or termination. You may argue that free speech may lead to intolerant laws and actions - but history suggests the direct opposite: free speech has mostly expanded tolerance. And it makes sense: we have gay rights as a result of free expression. For the longest time the “offensive” idea being censored was that being gay was ok and not a result of mental illness. Without free speech we wouldn’t have gay marriage.
quelsolaar 6y ago
When I grew up, outside the liquor store there used to be some drunks debating wild conspiracy theories about who killed Olof Plame. Nobody cared. Nobody felt the need to silence their obvious falsehoods. Everyone could see that they where not the brightest minds, and not worth engaging with. Today its hard to distinguish these people from scientists at the top of their fields. Maybe the issue isn't that we need to scilence people but rather we need different tools to distinguish who's worth listening to. Censorship fails because its an impossible judgement to make and its impossible to find a fair judge. Modern social networks amplify the outrageous, not the thoughtful. The needs for clicks has ruined discourse more then freedom of speech. I think there is a lot of work that could be done to build systems that encourage dialog and promote thoughtfulness online that isn't done today because everyone focuses on banning.
- mreome 6y ago
  The problem with "tools to distinguish who's worth listening to" is that, as you said, "its an impossible judgement to make and its impossible to find a fair judge." No individual can be knowledgeable in all the areas of science, economics, medicine, technology, etc, that would be necessary to understand and filter even a tiny slice of the daily news. Any tool will necessarily be making judgment calls for it's users in some way, and once the tool becomes the standard, those judgments will (effectively if perhaps not literally) determine who gets banned.
  - quelsolaar 6y ago
    You are right. This isnt easy, but i do think there are some things worth exploring: Science isn't controlled by one body, but by a network of peers that reaffirms or disproves prior work. Over time consensus is built, without the need to silence. Right now we use clicks as proxy for value. What if we structured it differently like, give people a limited pot of recommendation tokens they could use to show others what they value. If someone gives 3 months of tokens to a 10 page article, maybe that's worth reading? I dont know if these are the right metrics but we need to experiment. YouTube did the opposit when they wanted to reach 1 billion hours a day: they promoted anyone who had a channel that produced 1h of content a day. That meant that all the alternative news/facts talk-shows got a huge boost and that lead to a lot of bad things.
teh_klev 6y ago
> In a tolerant society, should we tolerate intolerance? What if in a society once tolerant to gaybashing, and other things (not so long ago), should one not tolerate "intolerance" to this? I think your question needs re-phrased.
- gchamonlive 6y ago
  Tolerate intolerance to tolerance of gaybashing? That is just not being tolerant to intolerance. The question stands
  - teh_klev 6y ago
    > Tolerate intolerance to tolerance of gaybashing? Which explains why you should probably re-phrase. And also because not all societies on this planet are the same in terms of "tolerance".
    - gchamonlive 6y ago
      > That is just not being tolerant to intolerance This is what you meant. It fits in the question. You are just phrasing it differently and calling it fundamentally different, when it is just a rearrangement and expansion of words. You can do this indefinitely, but the meaning won't change.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
enko123 6y ago
Tolerance is the default strategy of out-groups. When an out-group becomes power dominant, its narrative changes. Tolerance is no longer a high value. Now the high values are conformity, unity, obedience, etc. etc.
effie 6y ago
In some venues, up to a point, some types of intolerance, of course. Beyond that, some laws and harsh consequences have to exist for the dangerous cases too. The venues and the red lines should be natural result of society's history and consensus, it should not be imposed artificially by lawmakers or other powerful classes. Allowing people to manifest mistaken, stupid or repulsive opinions is a basic tenet of free society.
danaris 6y ago
If you want to maintain a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate intolerance. Stripping away all real-world specifics, take this as a thought experiment: You have a community (of whatever size) that starts out containing (among others) groups A and B. Group B is defined by their desire to remove group A from the community, and their outspoken proclamation of such and attempts to persuade others to their point of view. If the community remains "tolerant" of all, that will, over time, almost inevitably result in the size of group A within the community shrinking, due to group B's efforts being both successful and tolerated, and due to group A not wishing to remain in a place where their very right to existence is constantly questioned. In effect, what this means is that a community that claims to tolerate both groups is actually intolerant of group A. Tolerating any group-directed intolerance is, in effect, espousing it. Thus, in order to be tolerant to the greatest number, any community must not tolerate intolerance. It is also well worth noting that the types of intolerance we are generally discussing whether or not to tolerate are intolerances of intrinsic characteristics, while being intolerant of them is intolerance of a behavior. People can change their behavior. They cannot change their intrinsic characteristics. Thus, in the thought experiment above, if the community refuses to tolerate Group B's intolerance, no member of group B needs to leave. They only need to stop expressing their intolerance.
- gchamonlive 6y ago
  what we have to do then is to clearly define tolerance boundaries we cannot cross. Anything beyond that should be dealt with outside the boundaries of law.

We should tolerate all speech. That doesn't mean you can't scream and call it hate speech, but do so from your own platform.

cmeacham98 6y ago
What about libel/slander? What about child pornography? What about doxxing? Surely you agree we have to draw the line _somewhere_, even if you disagree with where we currently draw it?
- falcolas 6y ago
  > What about child pornography? It's amusing how frequently this comes up. If someone distributes child pornography, arrest them using the existing laws of the land. "But what if it spreads from there?" I hear someone saying. Well, they're still posting illegal content, so arrest them too. It's silly to assume that the freedom of speech implies some kind of inherent free pass from consequences of your speech.
  - danaris 6y ago
    I think what you're missing in this is that the only reason that stands is because images of child pornography, which would otherwise be considered protected speech just like any other image, have been declared to be illegal. It's not that "there are laws against child pornography, which are completely separate from the debate about free speech." Laws against the production of (actual) child pornography are irrelevant to the debate about free speech. Laws against its distribution are absolutely relevant, because "distribution of child pornography" is just a kind of speech. (To be clear, I oppose free-speech maximalism in general, and have no trouble with the idea of laws criminalizing the distribution of child pornography.)
    - falcolas 6y ago
      Here's the problem with this method of thinking: Any speech could be considered to be illegal by somebody. Better to create technology to let people talk, and leave the enforcement of laws to the individual countries. Attempting to pre-emptively censor speech because it's potentially illegal somewhere results in no speech.
      - danaris 6y ago
        ...I'm literally responding to you dismissing the question of whether one should view blocking distributing child pornography as being a restriction on free speech by saying (paraphrased) "there are laws against distributing child pornography, so it must not be a restriction on free speech." I was merely pointing out that, if we want to have a discussion about what types of speech should and shouldn't be allowed, we need to be clear with ourselves and each other about what actually constitutes speech, and restrictions thereupon. I'm having a hard time telling where you're reading in my post a suggestion that (e.g.), because criticism of the Thai monarchy is strictly prohibited in Thailand, we should technologically restrict such speech in the US.
        falcolas 6y ago
        To my mind, we're having a disagreement on a fundamental point: I believe that just because some forms of speech has consequences, that doesn't inherently restrict speech. What I'm reading of your stance is that since there are consequences for some forms of speech, this forms an implied and mandatory restriction on speech. The difference is subtle, but it's leading to us talking past each other, particularly when it comes to discussing technology that enables free speech. Unfortunately, this difference is not something I feel I can resolve on this forum. Good luck!
        danaris 6y ago
        There are natural consequences of speech, and there are legal consequences of speech. Natural consequences are things like if I say "I hate people who wear hats," and I get an internet mob coming after me to defend hats. Legal consequences would be if I happen to wander into a jurisdiction that has outlawed badmouthing hat-wearers, and I get arrested. Legal consequences of speech are restrictions on free speech, because they are something humans specifically and deliberately chose and could un-choose. Natural consequences are just that: natural.
- chrissnell 6y ago
  Sure, draw it along established legal lines, but stay away from silencing things that you simply disagree with.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    You’ve just significantly backpedaled from your comment right above...?
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    This is a straw man. No one is censoring flat-earthers. We’re not burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft or fucking stuffed animals or engaging in BDSM. This is about murder and terrorism. Be clear about what you’re defending if you’re so proud of it
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  Has anyone, anywhere, ever suggested that child pornography is 'speech' let alone 'free speech'? It seems bizarre to include in this list.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    It's typically included on lists because of the implications. One either takes the position (1) child pornography should be allowed to be shared, (2) child pornography should be suppressed, but may be shared, or (3) child pornography cannot be allowed to be shared. (3) obviously requires very different technical solutions (like: no private encryption, ever) than (1).
    - tanseydavid 6y ago
      I fail to see any relevance to a discussion centered around debating implications and boundaries of 'free speech.'
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        Do you think I should be allowed to possess encryption, through which I could share child pornography with others, without being detected?
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    Well, if you create a message board that accepts images, and you make it so there is no technical way to remove those images, you are implicitly including child porn in your definition of free speech.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    That sounds suspiciously similar to the historical argument about pornography in general: no one could defend that; it's bizarre to bring up.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  A key line in most societies seems "imminent or attributable harm." As in "we (as a tolerant society) can tolerate free speech up and to the point that someone else is harmed."
zaik 6y ago
So I can't call something hate speech on your free speech platform?
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
So if I effectively monopolise free speech by drowning out all other speech, that's ok?

jimbob45 6y ago

Every piece of speech is intolerant to someone out there. The mistake is thinking that any bit of speech is empirically tolerant or intolerant.

haram_masala 6y ago
This is an interesting line of thought, which I don't know if I agree with or not. It might be worth exploring the contrapositive: "If a piece of speech is tolerable to at least someone, then it shouldn't be censored." And that raises an absurd but still interesting thought experiment: if by some process, someone is able to create a statement that is intolerable to every single person on Earth, would it be okay to censor it?

allears 6y ago

Karl Popper explored this idea extensively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

nerdponx 6y ago
It's worth copying and pasting the quote used on Wikipedia, because it actually espouses a very strong view that I think many Americans, even moderate ones, might find surprising: 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal ...
- effie 6y ago
  Unfortunately, this argument and its result is not a good guide, because it is vague of what is "intolerant" and easily gets interpreted as fighting fascism with fascism. In order to win, we must become the enemy, because we are better. No thanks.
  - wrycoder 6y ago
    Popper is clear. He’s not willing to extend tolerance to completely intolerant people.

3np 6y ago

To make an analogy to the non-digital world I think it's apt: I don't think it should be tolerated in the public forum (e.g. overt racism espoused or advertised in cities or on national television). We also have laws against discrimination applying to private businesses, which I think is a decent balance. I don't think it's desirable to prohibit individuals from gathering in private and exchanging intolerant thought, though. Something like this falls under that IMO.

nostromo 6y ago

Yes, of course. This is presented as if it's some deep philosophical conundrum, when it's not. An example: I'm gay and I have had friends that didn't agree with me in supporting gay marriage. One was an ultra-orthodox Jew that was my coworker, and we would disagree on just about everything politically, but we still managed to tolerate each other and even become friends. This is what should happen in a tolerant society. Should we ban guys like him from Twitter if he decides to tweet against gay marriage? No, we shouldn't. We should tolerate his intolerance and have an open and honest debate.

cmeacham98 6y ago
Counterpoint: you seem to have accidentally strawmanned the opposing argument into a situation where the worst outcome is polite disagreement where you still can "become friends". I'd like to hear your opinions on my steelmanned version of the hypothetical: You meet somebody that is adamantly homophobic. They use their speech to rally others and take political action against gay people. They make same-sex marriage illegal (or block it from becoming legal). Maybe, they're extra successful, and can even manage to make gay sex or just being gay illegal, forcing you to pretend to be straight. Oh, this person also is your boss. They know you're gay, and they fire you from your job in the height of a pandemic where people are already having trouble finding work. When you get home, you find out their friend is your landlord and you're being evicted from your apartment in 30 days. Admittedly, this is somewhat of an extreme example, at least in my country in modern times, but go back 100 years and this is close to reality - and there's no strong evidence I'm aware of that suggests progress in these types of social justice causes can only be made forwards.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Having tolerance for speech we don’t agree with does not mean we need to tolerate harassment, eviction, or termination. You may argue that free speech may lead to intolerant laws and actions - but history suggests the direct opposite: free speech has mostly expanded tolerance. And it makes sense: we have gay rights as a result of free expression. For the longest time the “offensive” idea being censored was that being gay was ok and not a result of mental illness. Without free speech we wouldn’t have gay marriage.

quelsolaar 6y ago

When I grew up, outside the liquor store there used to be some drunks debating wild conspiracy theories about who killed Olof Plame. Nobody cared. Nobody felt the need to silence their obvious falsehoods. Everyone could see that they where not the brightest minds, and not worth engaging with. Today its hard to distinguish these people from scientists at the top of their fields. Maybe the issue isn't that we need to scilence people but rather we need different tools to distinguish who's worth listening to. Censorship fails because its an impossible judgement to make and its impossible to find a fair judge. Modern social networks amplify the outrageous, not the thoughtful. The needs for clicks has ruined discourse more then freedom of speech. I think there is a lot of work that could be done to build systems that encourage dialog and promote thoughtfulness online that isn't done today because everyone focuses on banning.

mreome 6y ago
The problem with "tools to distinguish who's worth listening to" is that, as you said, "its an impossible judgement to make and its impossible to find a fair judge." No individual can be knowledgeable in all the areas of science, economics, medicine, technology, etc, that would be necessary to understand and filter even a tiny slice of the daily news. Any tool will necessarily be making judgment calls for it's users in some way, and once the tool becomes the standard, those judgments will (effectively if perhaps not literally) determine who gets banned.
- quelsolaar 6y ago
  You are right. This isnt easy, but i do think there are some things worth exploring: Science isn't controlled by one body, but by a network of peers that reaffirms or disproves prior work. Over time consensus is built, without the need to silence. Right now we use clicks as proxy for value. What if we structured it differently like, give people a limited pot of recommendation tokens they could use to show others what they value. If someone gives 3 months of tokens to a 10 page article, maybe that's worth reading? I dont know if these are the right metrics but we need to experiment. YouTube did the opposit when they wanted to reach 1 billion hours a day: they promoted anyone who had a channel that produced 1h of content a day. That meant that all the alternative news/facts talk-shows got a huge boost and that lead to a lot of bad things.

teh_klev 6y ago

> In a tolerant society, should we tolerate intolerance? What if in a society once tolerant to gaybashing, and other things (not so long ago), should one not tolerate "intolerance" to this? I think your question needs re-phrased.

gchamonlive 6y ago
Tolerate intolerance to tolerance of gaybashing? That is just not being tolerant to intolerance. The question stands
- teh_klev 6y ago
  > Tolerate intolerance to tolerance of gaybashing? Which explains why you should probably re-phrase. And also because not all societies on this planet are the same in terms of "tolerance".
  - gchamonlive 6y ago
    > That is just not being tolerant to intolerance This is what you meant. It fits in the question. You are just phrasing it differently and calling it fundamentally different, when it is just a rearrangement and expansion of words. You can do this indefinitely, but the meaning won't change.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

enko123 6y ago

Tolerance is the default strategy of out-groups. When an out-group becomes power dominant, its narrative changes. Tolerance is no longer a high value. Now the high values are conformity, unity, obedience, etc. etc.

effie 6y ago

In some venues, up to a point, some types of intolerance, of course. Beyond that, some laws and harsh consequences have to exist for the dangerous cases too. The venues and the red lines should be natural result of society's history and consensus, it should not be imposed artificially by lawmakers or other powerful classes. Allowing people to manifest mistaken, stupid or repulsive opinions is a basic tenet of free society.

danaris 6y ago

If you want to maintain a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate intolerance. Stripping away all real-world specifics, take this as a thought experiment: You have a community (of whatever size) that starts out containing (among others) groups A and B. Group B is defined by their desire to remove group A from the community, and their outspoken proclamation of such and attempts to persuade others to their point of view. If the community remains "tolerant" of all, that will, over time, almost inevitably result in the size of group A within the community shrinking, due to group B's efforts being both successful and tolerated, and due to group A not wishing to remain in a place where their very right to existence is constantly questioned. In effect, what this means is that a community that claims to tolerate both groups is actually intolerant of group A. Tolerating any group-directed intolerance is, in effect, espousing it. Thus, in order to be tolerant to the greatest number, any community must not tolerate intolerance. It is also well worth noting that the types of intolerance we are generally discussing whether or not to tolerate are intolerances of intrinsic characteristics, while being intolerant of them is intolerance of a behavior. People can change their behavior. They cannot change their intrinsic characteristics. Thus, in the thought experiment above, if the community refuses to tolerate Group B's intolerance, no member of group B needs to leave. They only need to stop expressing their intolerance.

gchamonlive 6y ago
what we have to do then is to clearly define tolerance boundaries we cannot cross. Anything beyond that should be dealt with outside the boundaries of law.