3 ms·

The Realignment of Political Tolerance in the U.S. [pdf]

3 points by tkgally 5y ago

tkgally 5y ago
Abstract: "Studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s found the principles embodied in the First Amendment constituted a 'clear norm' endorsed by large majorities of community leaders and virtually all legal practitioners and scholars. This consensus has since weakened under the strain of arguments that racist slurs, epithets, and other expression that demeans social identities are an intolerable affront to egalitarian values. Guided by the theory that norms are transmitted through social learning, we show that these developments have spurred a dramatic realignment in public tolerance of offensive expression about race, gender, and religion. Tolerance has declined overall, and its traditional relationships with ideology, education, and age have diminished or reversed. Speech subject to changing norms of tolerance ranges from polemic to scientific inquiry, the fringes to the mainstream of political discourse, and left to right, raising profound questions about the scope of permissible debate in contemporary American politics."
- WalterGR 5y ago
  "Studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s found the principles embodied in the First Amendment constituted a 'clear norm' endorsed by large majorities of community leaders..." I don't know how the paper defines "community leaders", but the larger point is demonstrably false. Off the top of my head, the free-speech movement and flag burning come to mind. Saying that "community leaders" endorsed "the principles embodied in the First Amendment" and then contrasting that with the general populace is also highly questionable.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Saying that "community leaders" endorsed "the principles embodied in the First Amendment"... Further, what did "community" and especially religious leaders at the time think about combining religion and the federal government (public schools, court-houses, etc.)? I know the article is about the free speech part of the amendment, but "[endorsing] the principles embodied in the First Amendment" is simply too broad.

3 points by tkgally 5y ago

Abstract: "Studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s found the principles embodied in the First Amendment constituted a 'clear norm' endorsed by large majorities of community leaders and virtually all legal practitioners and scholars. This consensus has since weakened under the strain of arguments that racist slurs, epithets, and other expression that demeans social identities are an intolerable affront to egalitarian values. Guided by the theory that norms are transmitted through social learning, we show that these developments have spurred a dramatic realignment in public tolerance of offensive expression about race, gender, and religion. Tolerance has declined overall, and its traditional relationships with ideology, education, and age have diminished or reversed. Speech subject to changing norms of tolerance ranges from polemic to scientific inquiry, the fringes to the mainstream of political discourse, and left to right, raising profound questions about the scope of permissible debate in contemporary American politics."

WalterGR 5y ago
"Studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s found the principles embodied in the First Amendment constituted a 'clear norm' endorsed by large majorities of community leaders..." I don't know how the paper defines "community leaders", but the larger point is demonstrably false. Off the top of my head, the free-speech movement and flag burning come to mind. Saying that "community leaders" endorsed "the principles embodied in the First Amendment" and then contrasting that with the general populace is also highly questionable.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Saying that "community leaders" endorsed "the principles embodied in the First Amendment"... Further, what did "community" and especially religious leaders at the time think about combining religion and the federal government (public schools, court-houses, etc.)? I know the article is about the free speech part of the amendment, but "[endorsing] the principles embodied in the First Amendment" is simply too broad.