5 ms·

What’s the solution here? How can people who embrace freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and people who violently disagree with such freedoms, live and thr

What’s the solution here? How can people who embrace freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and people who violently disagree with such freedoms, live and thrive?

toyg 4y ago
That's the paradox of open societies. Popper wrote a bunch about it. Generally speaking, you just draw a line somewhere, and the open society ends there. Nazi apologist in Germany? You won't get the same privileges as the rest of the population. The challenge is to find a location for such line that is not clearly oppressive towards minorities with a right to exist (i.e. not the nazis).
- kbelder 4y ago
  Tolerate speech. Don't tolerate violence. It's not that hard in practical terms. Most children know this... it takes academic philosophers to turn it into a quaqmire.
  - SergeAx 4y ago
    Homeini fatwah is literally a speech, but it calls to violence.
    - Ladioss 4y ago
      Words do not bleed.
Comevius 4y ago
Western democracies don't embrace absolute freedom, nor should they. Intolerating intolerance, violently if we must is the only way for tolerance to exist. The only problem is that you need a value system geared toward long-term sustainability for any of this to be viable.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  And you also need an agreed definition for what types of tolerance are expected. A fatwa is just a declaration of intolerance of intolerance, but with a different working definition.
  - Comevius 4y ago
    No definition is perfect, but there are objectively better and worst definitions. The German constitution called Basic Law is among the best definitions. It seeks to preserve human dignity and provide a decent set of rights, freedoms and equality. It seeks to uphold the division of powers.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I feel like constitutions are completely different than tolerance. Tolerance in my mind is usually a cultural idea about how you teat legal behavior you disagree with. How do you treat someone with different values that you disagree with.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  > "Intolerating intolerance, violently if we must is the only way for tolerance to exist." No, That literally is the antithesis of tolerance. Also, IF (and that's a big if) some things are to be proscribed, they must be proscribed BY THE LAW and with DUE PROCESS, not "violently" as you claim.
  - Comevius 4y ago
    Who said anything about not having a due process. Of course we need a constitution, and need laws, but they are all worthless if you don't have a police and a military people can rely on. This is so obvious.
    - illuminerdy 4y ago
      Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded like you were saying that the general public should be violent towards people who are "intolerant" as a way to promote tolerance. But now I see that that could not possibly have been what you meant because this isn't Twitter and people on this forum aren't that dumb.
mhh__ 4y ago
nradov 4y ago
[flagged]
djohnston 4y ago
It's basically asking, how do we take a bunch of cavemen and stick them in Manhattan. Aside from hardcore segregation, it doesn't seem feasible.
fellellor 4y ago
Gun.

What’s the solution here? How can people who embrace freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and people who violently disagree with such freedoms, live and thrive?

toyg 4y ago

That's the paradox of open societies. Popper wrote a bunch about it. Generally speaking, you just draw a line somewhere, and the open society ends there. Nazi apologist in Germany? You won't get the same privileges as the rest of the population. The challenge is to find a location for such line that is not clearly oppressive towards minorities with a right to exist (i.e. not the nazis).

kbelder 4y ago
Tolerate speech. Don't tolerate violence. It's not that hard in practical terms. Most children know this... it takes academic philosophers to turn it into a quaqmire.
- SergeAx 4y ago
  Homeini fatwah is literally a speech, but it calls to violence.
  - Ladioss 4y ago
    Words do not bleed.

Comevius 4y ago

Western democracies don't embrace absolute freedom, nor should they. Intolerating intolerance, violently if we must is the only way for tolerance to exist. The only problem is that you need a value system geared toward long-term sustainability for any of this to be viable.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
And you also need an agreed definition for what types of tolerance are expected. A fatwa is just a declaration of intolerance of intolerance, but with a different working definition.
- Comevius 4y ago
  No definition is perfect, but there are objectively better and worst definitions. The German constitution called Basic Law is among the best definitions. It seeks to preserve human dignity and provide a decent set of rights, freedoms and equality. It seeks to uphold the division of powers.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I feel like constitutions are completely different than tolerance. Tolerance in my mind is usually a cultural idea about how you teat legal behavior you disagree with. How do you treat someone with different values that you disagree with.
illuminerdy 4y ago
> "Intolerating intolerance, violently if we must is the only way for tolerance to exist." No, That literally is the antithesis of tolerance. Also, IF (and that's a big if) some things are to be proscribed, they must be proscribed BY THE LAW and with DUE PROCESS, not "violently" as you claim.
- Comevius 4y ago
  Who said anything about not having a due process. Of course we need a constitution, and need laws, but they are all worthless if you don't have a police and a military people can rely on. This is so obvious.
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded like you were saying that the general public should be violent towards people who are "intolerant" as a way to promote tolerance. But now I see that that could not possibly have been what you meant because this isn't Twitter and people on this forum aren't that dumb.

mhh__ 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

[flagged]

djohnston 4y ago

It's basically asking, how do we take a bunch of cavemen and stick them in Manhattan. Aside from hardcore segregation, it doesn't seem feasible.

fellellor 4y ago

Gun.