Tolerance for the intolerant???

Post Reply New Topic

I've been thinking a lot about this lately...

We're supposed to be "tolerant" but I've noticed the tolerant are often intolerant of the intolerant...

Like the Left not accepting white supremacists...

But that's extreme...

How am I supposed to view my neighbor who is so kind to me, but has very intolerant views toward Homosexuality and she's also against Interracial relationships, saying "God doesn't like that! It should be illegal!"

So do we tolerate the intolerant, or is part of tolerance to be intolerant against intolerance?

I was at a large multi-table dinner party, the kind of situation where you have to choose between the vegetarian risotto and the non-vegetarian option when I noticed that my neighbor had his food catered (including silverware) on a tray reminiscent of airplane fare. The dishes were sealed with aluminum foil. He was evidently ultra-Kosher. It did not bother him to be seated with prosciutto eaters who, in addition, mix butter and meat in the same dishes. He just wanted to be left alone to follow his own preferences.
For Jews and Muslim minorities such as Shiites, Sufis, and associated religions such as Druze and Alawis, the aim is for people to leave them alone so they can satisfy their own dietary preferences –largely, with historical exceptions here and there. But had my neighbor been a Sunni Salafi, he would have required the entire room to be eating Halal. Perhaps the entire building. Perhaps the entire town. Hopefully the entire country. Hopefully the entire planet. Indeed, given the total lack of separation between church and state, and between the holy and the profane (Chapter x), to him Haram (the opposite of Halal) means literally illegal. The entire room was committing a legal violation.
As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight fundamentalists.As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight Salafi fundamentalists.
Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?”
This is in fact the incoherence that Kurt Gödel (the grandmaster of logical rigor) detected in the constitution while taking the naturalization exam. Legend has it that Gödel started arguing with the judge and Einstein, who was his witness during the process, saved him.
I wrote about people with logical flaws asking me if one should be “skeptical about skepticism”; I used a similar answer as Popper when was asked if “ one could falsify falsification”.
We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.
So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.

Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

was at a large multi-table dinner party, the kind of situation where you have to choose between the vegetarian risotto and the non-vegetarian option when I noticed that my neighbor had his food catered (including silverware) on a tray reminiscent of airplane fare. The dishes were sealed with aluminum foil. He was evidently ultra-Kosher. It did not bother him to be seated with prosciutto eaters who, in addition, mix butter and meat in the same dishes. He just wanted to be left alone to follow his own preferences.
For Jews and Muslim minorities such as Shiites, Sufis, and associated religions such as Druze and Alawis, the aim is for people to leave them alone so they can satisfy their own dietary preferences –largely, with historical exceptions here and there. But had my neighbor been a Sunni Salafi, he would have required the entire room to be eating Halal. Perhaps the entire building. Perhaps the entire town. Hopefully the entire country. Hopefully the entire planet. Indeed, given the total lack of separation between church and state, and between the holy and the profane (Chapter x), to him Haram (the opposite of Halal) means literally illegal. The entire room was committing a legal violation.
As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight fundamentalists.As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight Salafi fundamentalists.
Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?”
This is in fact the incoherence that Kurt Gödel (the grandmaster of logical rigor) detected in the constitution while taking the naturalization exam. Legend has it that Gödel started arguing with the judge and Einstein, who was his witness during the process, saved him.
I wrote about people with logical flaws asking me if one should be “skeptical about skepticism”; I used a similar answer as Popper when was asked if “ one could falsify falsification”.
We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.
So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.

So if I were to dox you, post slanderous claims and encourage violence against your person that might potentially be followed through, would you encourage people to argue against me doing that or would you ask the mods to punish me?

Sometimes the antidote to hate speech isn't just more speech, if the hate speech is substantial enough. Hate speech, at least as per the legal definition in most places isn't just speech that's disagreeable, it's speech that's slanderous and/or incites violence.

Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!

And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.

But not necessarily the means to do so.

Protecting yourself against liars can be an expensive and time-consuming business.

True, but I don't understand what exactly you're advocating, here. Could you elaborate?

Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

I wasn't advocating anything, in particular. Just pointing out that being theoretically able to sue for slander or libel isn't necessarily the safeguard many people think it is. To do that you need money, often a LOT of money. Some folk simply don't have the ability to defend their reputation in this way.

It turns into, "Who's got the biggest funds for the lawyer's fees?" rather than a matter of right or wrong.

So...what "safeguard" would you recommend?