4 ms·

The world is as happy as you project it to be. Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to toler

by Fnoord 5y ago

The world is as happy as you project it to be. Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). I'd like to believe we have more freedom of speech nowadays than 100 years ago when society was more hierarchical. However... every fart you make gets recorded and if zoomed in on, it gets reprimanded to the point where a cardinal Richelieu would be able to get the subject hanging. With regards of multi-culture and tolerance: certain behaviour is not accepted, and if ghat does not get assimilated the main culture become more racist to the subculture. Subcultures are free to maintain a part of their identity, its how certsin customs got into other society after war etc.

Jensson 5y ago
> Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). Popper said we should tolerate the intolerant as far as possible. His statement mostly related to when the intolerant starts to get physical or other real actions, not people just talking, he wouldn't agree with this modern interpretation of his words: "don't let intolerant people speak, shut them up!". He was very much in favor of conversations, so a platform where tolerant and intolerant people can meet and discuss is exactly what he would have wanted.
CyberRabbi 5y ago
> Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). It’s interesting that you’re regurgitating this fairly standard talking point in response to my comment even though it refutes a point my comment never made. It’s as if you grepped the term “freedom of speech” in my comment and that mechanically triggered this cookie cutter response. As long as you’re not thinking critically about the content you are reading, you’ll never have an original thought that actually may be intolerable to those in power.

by Fnoord 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago

> Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). Popper said we should tolerate the intolerant as far as possible. His statement mostly related to when the intolerant starts to get physical or other real actions, not people just talking, he wouldn't agree with this modern interpretation of his words: "don't let intolerant people speak, shut them up!". He was very much in favor of conversations, so a platform where tolerant and intolerant people can meet and discuss is exactly what he would have wanted.

CyberRabbi 5y ago

> Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). It’s interesting that you’re regurgitating this fairly standard talking point in response to my comment even though it refutes a point my comment never made. It’s as if you grepped the term “freedom of speech” in my comment and that mechanically triggered this cookie cutter response. As long as you’re not thinking critically about the content you are reading, you’ll never have an original thought that actually may be intolerable to those in power.