Tolerance for the intolerant???

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, as previously mentioned that was the whole point. "Dispute" covers a massive range of situations from shrugged shoulders to a World War.

So asking "Is violence acceptable to settle disputes - Yes or No?" is an oversimplification. Because in reality whether violence is reasonable depends on the circumstances. Mostly no but occasionally yes IMHO.

Same with censorship / freedom of speech. "Do you believe in freedom of speech - Yes or No?". Well mostly, but it depends......

To give an absolute Yes or No answer is to put yourself in a very dodgy position, because whatever the selling points of your chosen position both extremes have some very serious negatives too.

I believe in freedom of speech---and I believe I have the "freedom" not to listen to bullcrap, or to respond to it.

I feel like Woodrow Wilson gave it sort of a good try when it came to preventing wars in the future. The fact that he was a white supremacist lowers his retrospective credibility, though.

Does that extend to personally accepting libel or slander against you, though? Or to being conned by a fraudulent salesman? On the basis they have the right to claim whatever they like, even if it's garbage.

How do you feel about politicians stirring up popularist outrage with falsehoods to futher their careers, even if that means innocent people might get killed?

Public figures having their lives destroyed by rumours, without foundation? Or indeed private figures being thrust into the limelight by being falsely accused?

Last edited by Redd_Kross on 03 May 2021, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You missed the point.

I stated that one has the "right" to ignore bullcrap. It doesn't mean that one necessarily "should" ignore bullcrap.

It depends on the situation, really.

I wouldn't ignore slander; but if the "slander" does me no harm, why should I confront it? There are many other fishes to fry.

If somebody here calls me a "commie," I will just ignore it. People who know me know that I'm not a "commie." It's slander----but it probably will do me no harm; it would be obvious that the person is talking out of his ass.

No, because

is precisely the point I was making. We are in agreement. Absolutes don't work when talking about freedom of speech, same as they don't when talking about the undesirability of violence.

I lean more towards free speech than censorship, but there are limits. And that means some form of censorship is necessary..... and there are limits with that, too.

I lean more towards pacifism than violence as well, but again there are limits to that approach - most obviously when facing a violent and unreasonable opponent.

Sometimes unpleasant actions are necessary for the greater common good, in preventing far more unpleasantness from occurring overall.

Ha! What? How did I stop you? Your position is quite clear now, and I don't agree with it.

I know now not to engage in conversation with you any longer. Have a nice life!

I would say that it is okay to tolerate negative ideas but not negative, destructive behavior.

What's the point in free speech if no-one listens to each other anyway? Not meaning to get at you, it just seems like an important part of more talking being better.

Because you tried to limit the options for the entire debate on freedom of speech to Yes or No.

That doesn't leave any room for addressing different areas of the free speech debate (such as hate speech) separately, does it?

It's also not up to you to unilaterally decide what the "rules" of the debate are. That would be censorship.

That's a valid point. I don't disagree with it at all. We should all try to listen to other's point of view. It will make for a better environment for discussing these issues.

"We need to listen to each other more!"

"I'm not going to engage with you any more!"

Sure would be cool if you could make up your mind. Or do you mean that OTHER people should listen to others (such as other people should listen to YOU), but you're not required to listen to other people, cos obvs you already know everything and don't need to listen to other people.

If only there was some way to determine what things you feel should be listened to, and what things should not be listened to.

Oh, wait...


"I agree"


"I disagree"

Never mind, figured it out.

Here's one to chew on. If you truly believe in tolerance for the intolerant, then you should equally tolerate any intolerance, even if it is intolerance of intolerance. And if you try to stop my intolerance of intolerance, then you're just cherry picking which intolerance you approve of.

It's right up there with those who say "think for yourself!" but really mean "think just like me!".

Isn't championing negative ideas a negative, destructive behaviour?

As I understand it, Free Speech means the government can't arrest you for criticizing it. As a kid, I saw this exemplified in an animated TV special called "Liberty and the Littles." There's a scene where a man asks a cop to arrest another man for "calling the mayor a knucklehead" and the cop laughs and says, "I can't arrest him for that! It's a free country." A little on the nose, but not a bad example for kids. Free Speech doesn't protect you from, say, being banned from Twitter for violating its policies.

As far as the idea of tolerance for the intolerant, the first thing that comes to my mind is video that came out shortly after Marriage Equality was upheld by the Supreme Court. The idea was that you were supposed to think the people in the video were gay and that they were afraid of homophobic reactions if people found out, but the twist was that they were actually people who had opposed Marriage Equality and were now afraid their friends would hate them for it. I think this was a terrible attempt to flip the script and make the people who had opposed other people's rights look like the real victims. So in that case, I think they were asking for tolerance for their intolerance and I don't think it should be given to them.

However, on the internet I've found that some people will interpret any idea that they disagree with on any topic as a slippery slope towards intolerance. Like, if a person believes their politics are the only thing keeping the intolerant at bay, they can then accuse anyone who does not totally agree with their politics of supporting intolerance and therefore, claim that tolerating people with differing ideas is tolerating intolerance.

Or how about a popular work of fiction that's accused of supporting intolerant ideas? I feel like they all have been at this point. There are, inevitably, some people who will continue enjoying the work for other qualities, or will perhaps defend it and say that the interpretation claiming it's intolerant is incorrect. In my experience with internet discussions, when this happens, someone will probably accuse them of supporting intolerance, simply because they have a dissenting opinion.

Then there's the idea I see popping up constantly around the internet that in order to be a good citizen, you must have a confrontational personality and be constantly ready to argue with anyone who says anything nominally intolerant. I find this view intolerant of those of us with social anxiety, who may be nervous even during pleasant social interactions. The idea that I'm required to argue with every random person who says something wrong sounds like a nightmare to me.

I never said anyone should tolerate the intolerant. Please show me where I said such a thing.

That's the only part of the above you care to dispute? Cool. That says a lot.

As for tolerating the intolerant...



How does that NOT mean that you expect people to tolerate opinions they do not find "palatable"? Sure, you've sanitized the word "intolerant" into "not palatable", but what's the difference?

Yes yes sure sure, you prefaced that statement with a meaningless signal claiming that people don't have to tolerate bigotry racism, etc. But it's a toothless claim if people "don't have to tolerate it", but do have to listen to it, and allow it to be said, even if it's not "palatable". So people don't have to tolerate it. But they do have to tolerate it. Because MUH FREE SPEECH!! ! Verbal bigotry and verbal racism are still bigotry and racism. Just because it's verbal act doesn't mean it gets to hide behind "muh free speech!" as a defense. From here the usual game is to dance around verbal bigotry and play Racist Dualism, where racist statements are both merely opinions, AND facts worth acting upon - whichever is more beneficial at the time. So when you disagree with others, it's "muh free speech!" But when people disagree with you, it's cAnCeL CuLtUrE!! !

Not to mention



On one foot you claim to be a free speech ABSOLUTIST, but then you're more than happy to hide behind the very government restrictions that you give the impression of opposing. Or are there some restrictions you do agree with?
If you don't think that restriction should be there, you look silly when you then use it as a shield. And if you disagree with it so vehemently, you should be more disinclined to use it as a defense. So free speech should be unregulated - unless it incites violence or is defamatory. Or you don't agree with it. So apparently we're already moving that supposedly "absolute" goalpost. You MIGHT want to look up what the word "absolute" means

But ok, lets humor this nonsense. I can still jump through these hoops. For example, if someone said "I do not condone violence, but if a pedophile was shot in the face, I would pretend I didn't see anything, and be ok with it. And speaking of pedophiles, I think he might be one..." and pointed at you, that'd be ok, right? They're just opinions. They neither incite nor condone violence. They're not defamatory, since they're opinions. And if you found that "unpalatable", well that's just your problem, right? MUH FREE SPEECH! would make that ok, right? You may not like it, but you'd ABSOLUTELY defend their right to say it, ya?

Or is it time for the (ABSOLUTE!) rules to change again?

I don't anticipate you actually taking the time to address any of these glaring inconsistencies. I expect you'll find some tiny little molehill to inflate into a mountain, so you can avoid addressing anything of substance. Or you'll throw out some kind of excuse like "clearly there's no point in talking about this with you" (which would be funny from the guy that says ppl need to talk MORE) or some similar avoidance tactic.

It all sounds like the same bubble-head logic as people that say "If you don't like it then you can leave!" but then turn around and say "I don't like it so you should stop!", and totally fail to notice the contradiction.

You still haven't shown where I said you don't have the right to not tolerate intolerable speech. You're conflating two different issues. By any chance, can you tell me what those are? I doubt it.