5 ms·

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

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.
- davidivadavid 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    "intolerant of the intolerant" I don't like that phrase. Because it's extremely vague and implies that things other than physical violence could be a focus of suppression. Intolerant opinions and speech are not and should not be policed in any meaningful way. The free and open exchange of ideas is crucial to a free society. Even those that are "intolerant" or offensive. And, after seeing what happened over the last couple of years, I wonder how far people these days would take "intolerance of the intolerant"? Can a person who is known to be "intolerant" be banned from a grocery store for no other reason than their opinions? Can they be banned from all grocery stores? Should they be? Should they be fired from their jobs? Should they be harassed whenever they leave their house? There are way too many ways to abuse the notion that you should be "intolerant of the intolerant".
    - Comevius 4y ago
      Free speech absolutism is not practical. Platforms like HN, Twitter, Facebook or Reddit would be quite hostile, it's like letting people out in the streets doing whatever they want. That's not practical. The irony is that mainstream platforms tend to censor responsibly (even if false positives tend to occur due to the use of bots), while free speech absolutist platforms like Parler would ban you for merely having a different opinion. The other irony is that free speech absolutists are responsible for nearly all the terror attacks in the United States. The harmful ideas of these absolutists are rejected by society for a reason, but this was the case even before the internet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
jiscariot 4y ago
The context of this story is words written on paper, not absolute freedom. Violence in response to words is an escalation, full stop. We don't need to go in to all that abysmal "paradox of tolerance" drivel to agree on this.
- jedimind 4y ago
  How did no one ever think of this? We should have world peace by afternoon.

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.
davidivadavid 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  "intolerant of the intolerant" I don't like that phrase. Because it's extremely vague and implies that things other than physical violence could be a focus of suppression. Intolerant opinions and speech are not and should not be policed in any meaningful way. The free and open exchange of ideas is crucial to a free society. Even those that are "intolerant" or offensive. And, after seeing what happened over the last couple of years, I wonder how far people these days would take "intolerance of the intolerant"? Can a person who is known to be "intolerant" be banned from a grocery store for no other reason than their opinions? Can they be banned from all grocery stores? Should they be? Should they be fired from their jobs? Should they be harassed whenever they leave their house? There are way too many ways to abuse the notion that you should be "intolerant of the intolerant".
  - Comevius 4y ago
    Free speech absolutism is not practical. Platforms like HN, Twitter, Facebook or Reddit would be quite hostile, it's like letting people out in the streets doing whatever they want. That's not practical. The irony is that mainstream platforms tend to censor responsibly (even if false positives tend to occur due to the use of bots), while free speech absolutist platforms like Parler would ban you for merely having a different opinion. The other irony is that free speech absolutists are responsible for nearly all the terror attacks in the United States. The harmful ideas of these absolutists are rejected by society for a reason, but this was the case even before the internet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.

jiscariot 4y ago

The context of this story is words written on paper, not absolute freedom. Violence in response to words is an escalation, full stop. We don't need to go in to all that abysmal "paradox of tolerance" drivel to agree on this.

jedimind 4y ago
How did no one ever think of this? We should have world peace by afternoon.