The Paradox of Tolerance; a discussion.

[Chiropteran]

I would actually oppose any legal restrictions of so-called "hate speech." But I fully support making anyone who expresses such beliefs complete and utter social pariahs.

That is already the case, but we don't call them pariahs, we call them liberals.

I'll go into a bit more detail.

When you call someone a Nazi, isn't that a little hateful? Why don't you call out the fanatics who use that hate speech? Oh yeah, because they are on your side.

Admit it, your argument isn't about tolerance or hate speech, it's about making the other side look bad.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think you misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

I don't advocate legal, government censorship. I advocate making is so socially unacceptable that it's absolutely shunned with complete disgust.

I would actually oppose any legal restrictions of so-called "hate speech." But I fully support making anyone who expresses such beliefs complete and utter social pariahs.

That would have to be expressed more precisely for me to endorse it. I have no problem condemning bigotry for what it, the ideas and beliefs and the actions taken out of those things, but I can't go so far as to condemn the bigot. Bigotry is the presence of unexamined and false assumptions about the nature of reality, and we acquire them unconsciously. Nobody is guilty of moral failings who is unaware they have them. It's a 'don't cast the first stone' kind of thing, in my opinion.

 

[zinfamous]

This is the problem with not tolerating intolerance. Tolerance is usually subjective and depends on the person you ask. What is tolerant to me is intolerant to another. What I find intolerant others find tolerant.

Take for example, this P&N board. Over the years the conservative members have been banned or run away from the discussion because if they bring anything up, they are labeled intolerant, racist, bigot, so on and so forth. So what we have now is a 95% liberal member base participating in these forums. What happens if this continues at a large scale, outside of the internet, and across the globe in all aspects? Conservatives may lash out because their voice is not heard. This leads to civil unrest. Maybe the liberals want to silence the conservatives, but I think anybody with any thought will realize that is not a healthy solution to any problem.

Now I'm not trying to bash this forum, we've seen this same type of things over the years when it comes to not tolerating gays, blacks, or any other or group of people who feel oppressed.

What it really comes down to is this: The only way we are going to get past this is if we start treating others with respect. Treat them how we'd want to be treated. We shouldn't give ourselves excuses for bad behavior: "I will only be nice if I find the other person x, y, or z..." Really, we should be nice regardless of who the person is, or what they do. Truth with love is what my wife says.

Conservatives own 70% of elected government in this country; not to mention judicial appointments.

Are you trying to suggest that "they have been silenced"? It more or less coincides with the same time period of what you claim as the supposed banning and running-away of conservatives on this board. If they have been forced underground due to holding minority opinions, it doesn't really show by virtue of the fact that conservatives hold the vast majority of public power.

Any claim that they can't get anything done because "liberals hold them back" is, of course nonsense. They can't get anything done because they have too many factions within, fighting each other. They have no idea who they are, but of course will band together and blame liberals for their incompetence. Ignore the numbers, folks! We have the majorities needed to do everything we want--but we aren't able to do those things because liberals won't let us! Watch, it will be the same nonsense for the next 4 years, as it will be on this board. Conservatives can only do god's work when liberals "let them."

 

[agent00f]

That is already the case, but we don't call them pariahs, we call them liberals.

I'll go into a bit more detail.

When you call someone a Nazi, isn't that a little hateful? Why don't you call out the fanatics who use that hate speech? Oh yeah, because they are on your side.

Admit it, your argument isn't about tolerance or hate speech, it's about making the other side look bad.

Pretty sure the people calling blacks chimps and so on are on your side. Calling such degenerates degenerates is only accurate.

 

[qliveur]

I think you misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

I don't advocate legal, government censorship. I advocate making is so socially unacceptable that it's absolutely shunned with complete disgust.

I would actually oppose any legal restrictions of so-called "hate speech." But I fully support making anyone who expresses such beliefs complete and utter social pariahs.

Should people who don't believe that "rape culture" exists in Western society be "shunned with complete disgust" and regarded as "complete and utter social pariahs?"

 

[Chiropteran]

Pretty sure the people calling blacks chimps and so on are on your side. Calling such degenerates degenerates is only accurate.

I thought you liked racism? It's only cool when you make fun of white people?

 

[agent00f]

I thought you liked racism? It's only cool when you make fun of white people?

I make fun of white nationalists, who evidently see themselves as a distinct and I guess victimzed race.

 

[Amused]

So, in light of the Nazi Youtube god (not gonna correct ... apparently I'm dyslexic and it's funny) discussion, this thread should be bumped. Because at the heart of that matter, is this matter.

Something Europe grasped long before the US is the paradox of tolerance. Thus the one thing they do not tolerate is intolerance in what has been a fairly successful campaign to maintain tolerance in countries with long histories of sliding in and out of intolerant states. The last and final straw being Nazi Germany.

 

[Commodus]

So, in light of the Nazi Youtube god (not gonna correct ... apparently I'm dyslexic and it's funny) discussion, this thread should be bumped. Because at the heart of that matter, is this matter.

Something Europe grasped long before the US is the paradox of tolerance. Thus the one thing they do not tolerate is intolerance in what has been a fairly successful campaign to maintain tolerance in countries with long histories of sliding in and out of intolerant states. The last and final straw being Nazi Germany.

The YouTube dog incident was a bit ridiculous, but at the same time... the reaction to it illustrates the importance of being intolerant of intolerance. The most ardent defenders of that video (see: 0roo and his hyperbolic "omg freedom is dead" whining) are the same ones who enthusiastically support a President and Republican party that are pushing for institutionalized discrimination and anti-democratic processes. They tell lies about liberals wanting to suppress opposing views, but see absolutely no problem in creating a system that actually denies rights to anyone who isn't a white, straight, Christian conservative.

 

[Jaskalas]

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

It matters how you approach this subject.

For a quick and dirty example of the nuance layered into this subject, should we be forced to drop gender pronouns? Some folks want to suggest it's hateful and intolerant to use he/she. If someone refuses to jump on the bandwagon to drop gender specificity, should they be labeled and banned from society? Run out of town and attacked, so to say?

 

[Amused]

The YouTube dog incident was a bit ridiculous, but at the same time... the reaction to it illustrates the importance of being intolerant of intolerance. The most ardent defenders of that video (see: 0roo and his hyperbolic "omg freedom is dead" whining) are the same ones who enthusiastically support a President and Republican party that are pushing for institutionalized discrimination and anti-democratic processes. They tell lies about liberals wanting to suppress opposing views, but see absolutely no problem in creating a system that actually denies rights to anyone who isn't a white, straight, Christian conservative.

Precisely. They are looking for their "Rosa Parks." A seemingly innocent victim of the intolerance of intolerance to use as a propaganda tool to lift limits on the spreading of intolerance.

 

[Moonbeam]

So, in light of the Nazi Youtube god (not gonna correct ... apparently I'm dyslexic and it's funny) discussion, this thread should be bumped. Because at the heart of that matter, is this matter.

Something Europe grasped long before the US is the paradox of tolerance. Thus the one thing they do not tolerate is intolerance in what has been a fairly successful campaign to maintain tolerance in countries with long histories of sliding in and out of intolerant states. The last and final straw being Nazi Germany.

The issue as I see it is that intolerance is only visible to people who are tolerant and totally invisible to people that aren't. This means that intolerance of intolerance can equate to a common sense evaluation or be totally dangerous. Intolerance can thus be rational or totally insane, depending on who is judging. And add to that societal swings between periods of intense conservative producing uncertainty and fear and liberal attitudes promoted by cultural optimism.

Right now in the US we are witness to a mass psychosis represented by Donald Trump. One item in the news today is intolerance of transgender people for reasons. It's basically look at the Jews while I try to cement in place an authoritarian dictatorship. Has the 1% eaten your lunch? Well, let's blame transgendered people.

Emotional need is and endless pit.

 

[Moonbeam]

It matters how you approach this subject.

For a quick and dirty example of the nuance layered into this subject, should we be forced to drop gender pronouns? Some folks want to suggest it's hateful and intolerant to use he/she. If someone refuses to jump on the bandwagon to drop gender specificity, should they be labeled and banned from society? Run out of town and attacked, so to say?

According to scientific studies both the left and the right can rationalize away data that provokes negative feelings, but the right is more susceptible to this malaise than liberals are and more difficult to cure. That there are two brain differences between liberals and conservatives that relate directly to this, it makes logical sense for the difference in expression.

 

[realibrad]

Lol, I hope you all realize that you are being stirred up by a Russian troll. I am not talking about the OP. There is someone here that suddenly pops up when Russia is in the news.

As for the OP topic, there is no conflict so long as laws are not passed to restrict the rights of others. The intolerant are only powerful if we allow them to change the laws. Once you try and give power to the "tolerant" to stop the "intolerant" you create a tool that can fall into the hands of the other side. Its all well and good when you have a benevolent leader, but, giving those leads power leads to the potential of giving that power to an intolerant leader. This is why you need freedom of speech. Its not for the times when things are going good, but, for when times are bad.

 

[Amused]

Lol, I hope you all realize that you are being stirred up by a Russian troll. I am not talking about the OP. There is someone here that suddenly pops up when Russia is in the news.

As for the OP topic, there is no conflict so long as laws are not passed to restrict the rights of others. The intolerant are only powerful if we allow them to change the laws. Once you try and give power to the "tolerant" to stop the "intolerant" you create a tool that can fall into the hands of the other side. Its all well and good when you have a benevolent leader, but, giving those leads power leads to the potential of giving that power to an intolerant leader. This is why you need freedom of speech. Its not for the times when things are going good, but, for when times are bad.

The freedom of speech has never been absolute, even in the US. Slander and threats are legally actionable, as well as speech that intentionally causes a panic and harm.

I see no problem extending that to hate speech against the already protected classes.

And before you try, slippery slope is a logical fallacy. As well as most of Europe has banned hate speech and as such, have stopped the return to tyranny.

 

[realibrad]

The freedom of speech has never been absolute, even in the US. Slander and threats are legally actionable, as well as speech that intentionally causes a panic and harm.

Correct.

I see no problem extending that to hate speech against the already protected classes.

I do, because, what one might consider hate speech may be true. For example, the google memo guy has far more support by actual scientists than he has from the public. Many have decided and pushed the idea that what he said in his memo was hate speech. There is ambiguity in the data as there always seems to be with that subject, but for sure there is data backing up his opinion. Should science not get to publish papers researching this? Should people not be allowed to talk about these things?

Realize this, we had someone who has a degree in biology, whom works in the field, and yet he made the statement that "gender is 100% a biological construct". You then had a person who is a clinical psychologist tell him that was wrong. How do we combat ideas like that? Because on one hand we progress rights for people that are gay because its biological, yet apparently they are also choosing to be that way.

Ill grant you that many people that talk about these things are using freedom of speech as a way to hurt people. Its my belief that in trying to protect people from shitty people, we would build a system that would eventually get abused.

And before you try, slippery slope is a logical fallacy. As well as most of Europe has banned hate speech and as such, have stopped the return to tyranny.

You say that slippery slope is a logical fallacy (it is), and then present a fallacy of your own. How do you know that their speech laws are what prevented tyranny?

I am not pretending that people do not use freedom of speech to attack people. I just believe its a double edge that can also be used to defend. Europe has a nasty history of building power to help people only to then abuse it.

 

[zinfamous]

The intolerant are only powerful if we allow them to change the laws. Once you try and give power to the "tolerant" to stop the "intolerant" you create a tool that can fall into the hands of the other side.

So, Trump.






























...

 

[jackstar7]

Its my belief that in trying to protect people from shitty people, we would build a system that would eventually get abused.

Can you explain how it would be abused? Also, how did you reach this belief?

 

[realibrad]

So, Trump.

Yep. I did not like when Obama expanded executive powers. I was not worried about him using the power, but the person after that might do horrible things. I did not expect it to happen so quickly though.

I will also add that I say Obama because he was the most recent. G.W.B. expanded less but did far worse bringing back torture.

 

[realibrad]

Can you explain how it would be abused? Also, how did you reach this belief?

...you can't think of how it might be bad?

"Excuse me Mr. Hitler sir, but I don't believe it was the Jews fault that we Germany lost the war"... and prison.

"Lol, Trump's mom is an ape"...and jail because evolution is a lie.

"We should do something about climate change"...jail for spreading lies.

Oh, how did I get to my conclusions? Pixies.

 

[zinfamous]

Yep. I did not like when Obama expanded executive powers. I was not worried about him using the power, but the person after that might do horrible things. I did not expect it to happen so quickly though.

I will also add that I say Obama because he was the most recent. G.W.B. expanded less but did far worse bringing back torture.

Huh?

explain.

(meaning, I agree that he exploited such powers, but I don't recall him expanding beyond Bush-level Acts to codify such power. I also agree that his actions were generally less worrisome because we all knew that a capable, rational human was wielding that wand, but I don't see how any executive power effectively expanded under Obama)

 

[jackstar7]

...you can't think of how it might be bad?

"Excuse me Mr. Hitler sir, but I don't believe it was the Jews fault that we Germany lost the war"... and prison.

"Lol, Trump's mom is an ape"...and jail because evolution is a lie.

"We should do something about climate change"...jail for spreading lies.

Oh, how did I get to my conclusions? Pixies.

Sorry, can you lay out the steps from A - > Z on those? I'm not following your train of thought at all here.

 

[justoh]

Probably better than Amused vs Realibad.

Bonus: Gervais on racist pugs and why they're funny.

 

[realibrad]

Probably better than Amused vs Realibad.

Bonus: Gervais on racist pugs and why they're funny.

Hey, there is no probably. Hitches is amazing.

 

[realibrad]

Huh?

explain.

(meaning, I agree that he exploited such powers, but I don't recall him expanding beyond Bush-level Acts to codify such power. I also agree that his actions were generally less worrisome because we all knew that a capable, rational human was wielding that wand, but I don't see how any executive power effectively expanded under Obama)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...nk-democrats-for-them/?utm_term=.c8855d622859

Obama ended torture, but cotified and enhansed many other things from bush. Then he created a far larger system of extrajudicial killing as well as monitoring of the world. Both things done by Bush, but, under Obama done far more.