4 ms·

It's the paradox of tolerance. If you allow the people who want everyone not like them to be forcibly marginalized or killed to have the same rights as all oth

It's the paradox of tolerance. If you allow the people who want everyone not like them to be forcibly marginalized or killed to have the same rights as all others, they will relentlessly try to flip that around until they're the only ones with those rights. We have to stop such behavior at almost any cost. This was made blindingly obvious to the majority of the population during WWII. It's a damn shame how so many are forgetting those lessons now. It could very well lead to something even worse than that war. This is why what you seem to think should be "common knowledge by now" isn't.

sneak 6y ago
Speech and violence are different things. You don't have to be tolerant of bad ideas (and indeed you should not be) but you do have to protect the rights of all human beings to express them. Protecting the legal rights to publish, and personally/morally tolerating the publication of abhorrent things are two entirely different concepts. No one person or group should ever be permitted to declare themselves the arbiter of truth.
- slfnflctd 6y ago
  > You don't have to be tolerant of bad ideas [...] but you do have to protect the rights of all human beings to express them Is there no limit to this? Knowing how horrible human beings can be to each other, is there really no point at which we draw the line and say, no further? Because there very much are numerous examples of where we do so according to the law. As uncomfortable as it may be, the conversation about who should be silenced must continue. For as long as we face the prospect of fellow humans encouraging their peers to harm other fellow humans for bad reasons, there is no sane alternative. It's probably something we'll have to deal with until/unless the dubious promises of transhumanism become real.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sneak 6y ago
    > Is there no limit to this? Knowing how horrible human beings can be to each other, is there really no point at which we draw the line and say, no further? Who said there is to be no limit? I explicitly clarified the limit: violence. Words are fine. Violence is not. > As uncomfortable as it may be, the conversation about who should be silenced must continue. Not if you want to continue having those conversations. Silencing people is a violation of their human rights, once those go out the window for a certain segment, it is simply a matter of time before that segment is bent and twisted to include you.
soundnote 6y ago
https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1328898661569363969 https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1328898661569363969

sneak 6y ago

Speech and violence are different things. You don't have to be tolerant of bad ideas (and indeed you should not be) but you do have to protect the rights of all human beings to express them. Protecting the legal rights to publish, and personally/morally tolerating the publication of abhorrent things are two entirely different concepts. No one person or group should ever be permitted to declare themselves the arbiter of truth.

slfnflctd 6y ago
> You don't have to be tolerant of bad ideas [...] but you do have to protect the rights of all human beings to express them Is there no limit to this? Knowing how horrible human beings can be to each other, is there really no point at which we draw the line and say, no further? Because there very much are numerous examples of where we do so according to the law. As uncomfortable as it may be, the conversation about who should be silenced must continue. For as long as we face the prospect of fellow humans encouraging their peers to harm other fellow humans for bad reasons, there is no sane alternative. It's probably something we'll have to deal with until/unless the dubious promises of transhumanism become real.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sneak 6y ago
  > Is there no limit to this? Knowing how horrible human beings can be to each other, is there really no point at which we draw the line and say, no further? Who said there is to be no limit? I explicitly clarified the limit: violence. Words are fine. Violence is not. > As uncomfortable as it may be, the conversation about who should be silenced must continue. Not if you want to continue having those conversations. Silencing people is a violation of their human rights, once those go out the window for a certain segment, it is simply a matter of time before that segment is bent and twisted to include you.

soundnote 6y ago

https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1328898661569363969 https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1328898661569363969