I like it as long as the social contract is made clear. The problem is a social contract is basically a set of rules people have consented to “explicitly or tacitly” in order to participate in society.
So while this is good in situations, like people taking offense when someone uses a racial slur in a city.
It could in theory be bad, like practicing an unpopular religion in a rural town.
It is easier than that. Rejecting violence is only possible when collectively agreed upon, since after all everyone has the capacity for violence. When someone breaks this agreement, referred to as the social contract, they incite violence upon all. Being the target of violence after causing it is natural. The hard thing is recognizing that there is such a system in place all the time, namely the state’s monopoly on violence, which has to be treated with the utmost care else risk the total decimation of social structure.
Thats the problem with this whole “intolerate the intolerant” debacle. What are calls to violence and segregation against groups of people and what is just “shit i dont agree with”? Theres a subset of people that group both of this thogeter and use this argument to try and censor people that they dont agree with, and its specially bad when governments or companies do this.
This really shouldnt be thrown around so lightly like if it was an absolute thruth, specially since those that do just whant to push their agenda presenting both it and themselves as fundamentally correct, and taking into account that this was originally a thought experiment and not like an absolutetist declaration.
One example would be youtube taking away the downvote counter claiming they where protecting small chanels from harasment.
Edit:
Youtube just used that as an excuse to protect its interests and the ones of other companies, not to protect people from harasment by censoring anyone that disagrees with any video. Its doing bad things in the name of intolerating the intolerant and silencing digresion.
There’s usually a very clear difference between an attempt to remove or limit a class of people and disagreement with a class of people. It just requires a little bit of analysis.
Take the conservative Midwest and LGBT for example. For a period of time, the attitude was “while my faith says LGBT might not be great, I won’t stand in the way of equity.” More recently, the attitude has been “because my faith says LGBT might not be great, I’m going to actively remove protections for classes of people.”
I am neither a member of any faith nor LGBT. To me, it’s pretty fucking obvious the former attitude is tolerant and the latter attitude is intolerant. I am very tolerant of people of faith. I am very intolerant of faith-based government policy that strips my peers of their rights. I am going to actively censor folks that advocate for treating other human beings worse than themselves because that’s fucking dumb. Actively censoring often means having a discussion about why treating someone like shit isn’t tolerant.
At the end of the day I’m also tolerant of your opinion because you’re not advocating to demean a class of people. I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.
I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.
I wrote the complete oposite of that m8… wtf?
Corporations shouldnt have a say on what is hate speech because critisisms to them or against their agendas will be gaslighted by them into being hate speech, specially in their platforms, and governments should punish calls to violence/segretation/discrimination in public forums, nothing more, nothing else. I never talked about removing anybodies rights.
What are calls to violence and segregation against groups of people and what is just “shit i dont agree with”?
This is really all that hard to answer. I mean, theoretically, it is. Practically, though? There’s an well-researched connection between a group characterized as “invading pests” and political violence against that group, for example. There was an increase in violence against Asians during the coronavirus pandemic, too. And it’d be ridiculous to believe that calling it the “Wuhan flu” wasn’t related to that violence.
Frankly, many calls to violence that masquerade as “shit I don’t agree with”. Merely calling someone “evil” is, imo, a call to violence. It least justifies it, because evil is not to be persuaded or collaborated with, but driven out and opposed militantly at every step. Especially at the national level, characterizations of evil preclude more deliberative alternatives by default.
But many people don’t think that way and don’t see the connection between words and violence. I also don’t think many value more peaceful alternatives to violence either…but that’s just my opinion.
“I dont like that x people do z thing because it affects y people in a negative way.”
This one its not calling for violence against x people. its calling out x people for affecting y people in a negative way. Now if people get violent about it its because there is no denying that there is a number of people that already hate x people and are looking for anu excuse to lash out against x people, and they are gonna end up doing just that whatever they find it or not.
“I dont like x people because they could be a negative influence in our community.”
Its a hard one but it is a call to segregation because it is saying that x people dont belong on the comunity that whoever is talking belongs in, now wathever this is true or not, by saying that it is implied that taking them out of the comunity would be a positive thing. So it is a call to do bad things but very subtelly.
So should the 2nd one be banned? No imho because it is very subtle about it and could be said as a genuine mistake. But it should and will be called out by people that dont agree with it and smart people would see it as a poor argument because it calls for segregation, and while a very bad opinnion it shouldnt be outhright banned, just called out and laughed at.
Now what should be punished or banned should br saying in a very public forum in front of lots of people something like the following:
“I dont like X people, they harm the good people of our community and they should be exilled from it and punished for their crimes such as z”
This one is an obvius one, it calls for violence and segregation for x people, punishment and comes of more as rallying than a genuine argument. So yeah, bann that.
I made that frase and used it as an example because people that use the “tolerance is intolerance to the intollerant” argument usually use it because they dont tolerate someone else having diferent opinions than them and say they are being intolerant when that is not true. And censoring genuine diferent points of view that do not call for violence or segregation is in my opinion a form of discrimination/segregation. So they themselves are doing what they preach is bad.
I like it as long as the social contract is made clear. The problem is a social contract is basically a set of rules people have consented to “explicitly or tacitly” in order to participate in society.
So while this is good in situations, like people taking offense when someone uses a racial slur in a city.
It could in theory be bad, like practicing an unpopular religion in a rural town.
It is easier than that. Rejecting violence is only possible when collectively agreed upon, since after all everyone has the capacity for violence. When someone breaks this agreement, referred to as the social contract, they incite violence upon all. Being the target of violence after causing it is natural. The hard thing is recognizing that there is such a system in place all the time, namely the state’s monopoly on violence, which has to be treated with the utmost care else risk the total decimation of social structure.
Bingo!
Thats the problem with this whole “intolerate the intolerant” debacle. What are calls to violence and segregation against groups of people and what is just “shit i dont agree with”? Theres a subset of people that group both of this thogeter and use this argument to try and censor people that they dont agree with, and its specially bad when governments or companies do this.
This really shouldnt be thrown around so lightly like if it was an absolute thruth, specially since those that do just whant to push their agenda presenting both it and themselves as fundamentally correct, and taking into account that this was originally a thought experiment and not like an absolutetist declaration.
One example would be youtube taking away the downvote counter claiming they where protecting small chanels from harasment.
Edit: Youtube just used that as an excuse to protect its interests and the ones of other companies, not to protect people from harasment by censoring anyone that disagrees with any video. Its doing bad things in the name of intolerating the intolerant and silencing digresion.
There’s usually a very clear difference between an attempt to remove or limit a class of people and disagreement with a class of people. It just requires a little bit of analysis.
Take the conservative Midwest and LGBT for example. For a period of time, the attitude was “while my faith says LGBT might not be great, I won’t stand in the way of equity.” More recently, the attitude has been “because my faith says LGBT might not be great, I’m going to actively remove protections for classes of people.”
I am neither a member of any faith nor LGBT. To me, it’s pretty fucking obvious the former attitude is tolerant and the latter attitude is intolerant. I am very tolerant of people of faith. I am very intolerant of faith-based government policy that strips my peers of their rights. I am going to actively censor folks that advocate for treating other human beings worse than themselves because that’s fucking dumb. Actively censoring often means having a discussion about why treating someone like shit isn’t tolerant.
At the end of the day I’m also tolerant of your opinion because you’re not advocating to demean a class of people. I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.
I wrote the complete oposite of that m8… wtf? Corporations shouldnt have a say on what is hate speech because critisisms to them or against their agendas will be gaslighted by them into being hate speech, specially in their platforms, and governments should punish calls to violence/segretation/discrimination in public forums, nothing more, nothing else. I never talked about removing anybodies rights.
This is really all that hard to answer. I mean, theoretically, it is. Practically, though? There’s an well-researched connection between a group characterized as “invading pests” and political violence against that group, for example. There was an increase in violence against Asians during the coronavirus pandemic, too. And it’d be ridiculous to believe that calling it the “Wuhan flu” wasn’t related to that violence.
Frankly, many calls to violence that masquerade as “shit I don’t agree with”. Merely calling someone “evil” is, imo, a call to violence. It least justifies it, because evil is not to be persuaded or collaborated with, but driven out and opposed militantly at every step. Especially at the national level, characterizations of evil preclude more deliberative alternatives by default.
But many people don’t think that way and don’t see the connection between words and violence. I also don’t think many value more peaceful alternatives to violence either…but that’s just my opinion.
Honestly no.
It is easy to diferentiate those things.
For example;
“I dont like that x people do z thing because it affects y people in a negative way.”
This one its not calling for violence against x people. its calling out x people for affecting y people in a negative way. Now if people get violent about it its because there is no denying that there is a number of people that already hate x people and are looking for anu excuse to lash out against x people, and they are gonna end up doing just that whatever they find it or not.
“I dont like x people because they could be a negative influence in our community.”
Its a hard one but it is a call to segregation because it is saying that x people dont belong on the comunity that whoever is talking belongs in, now wathever this is true or not, by saying that it is implied that taking them out of the comunity would be a positive thing. So it is a call to do bad things but very subtelly.
So should the 2nd one be banned? No imho because it is very subtle about it and could be said as a genuine mistake. But it should and will be called out by people that dont agree with it and smart people would see it as a poor argument because it calls for segregation, and while a very bad opinnion it shouldnt be outhright banned, just called out and laughed at.
Now what should be punished or banned should br saying in a very public forum in front of lots of people something like the following:
“I dont like X people, they harm the good people of our community and they should be exilled from it and punished for their crimes such as z”
This one is an obvius one, it calls for violence and segregation for x people, punishment and comes of more as rallying than a genuine argument. So yeah, bann that.
I made that frase and used it as an example because people that use the “tolerance is intolerance to the intollerant” argument usually use it because they dont tolerate someone else having diferent opinions than them and say they are being intolerant when that is not true. And censoring genuine diferent points of view that do not call for violence or segregation is in my opinion a form of discrimination/segregation. So they themselves are doing what they preach is bad.