Why I don’t really understand the tolterance contradiction argument

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 16
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
There are people who argue that in order to ensure true tolerance, one cannot be tolterant of the intolerance.  An example of this is when people claim that Nazis should not get tolerated because they are intolerant of Jews.

However, how far does this argument go?  Like if I were to say, “Being Jewish should be illegal”, people say that’s hate speech that should be banned.  If I were to say, “Being polygamous should be illegal.” that is also being intolerant, but it’s an intolerance that 83% of the US agrees with.

So what separates, “Ban Jews.” from “Ban polygamous people.”?  If virtually everyone wanted polygamy legal, advocating for it being banned would be interpreted as hate speech to some.  If virtually everyone approved of anti semetism, then it would be viewed as free speech by even those that didn’t hate Jews.

This is why I think free speech absolutism is the ideal.
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
There are people who argue that in order to ensure true tolerance, one cannot be tolterant of the intolerance.  An example of this is when people claim that Nazis should not get tolerated because they are intolerant of Jews.
  • I don't think anybody makes a pro-intolerance  argument against groups of people.  Some types of speech are less tolerated or not tolerated at all depending on the states.  I think it was Brandenberg v. Ohio that fenced those limits roughly at incitment, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child porn, fighting words, and threats.  Almost everybody agrees that Nazis must be tolerated.  Nazi speech is more frequently limited than most other speech because Nazi speech is so agressive and persistent in its pursuit of incitment, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child porn, fighting words, and threats.
However, how far does this argument go?  Like if I were to say, “Being Jewish should be illegal”, people say that’s hate speech that should be banned.  If I were to say, “Being polygamous should be illegal.” that is also being intolerant, but it’s an intolerance that 83% of the US agrees with.
  • I think that intolerance has shifted far faster than you realize. 
    • In 2022, Gallup has support for plural marriage up to 23%. 
    • The last actual prosecution I can find was 2001 and child rape was also involved there.
    • Utah changed bigamy from a felony to a misdemeanor in 2020.  Now the worst that can happen is a $750 fine but never jail time.
    • When Conservatives found out that Ashli  Babbitt was living in a polygamous relationship, there was no hue and cry- hardly anybody batted an eye
    • I think the era of big government regualtion of sex and sexuality is rapidly coming to a close.
So what separates, “Ban Jews.” from “Ban polygamous people.”?  
incitment, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child porn, fighting words, and threats


#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Speech is moderated by perceived microaggressions at the moment.

Suppressing speech because it may be found defamatory in a court of law is a descent into a pre-crime dystopia.
#4
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
The problem most people don't understand about free speech is that it can come with consequences. For example: You are free to say all Jews should be exterminated but what you cant do is control other peoples responses, such as employment termination, contract termination, loss of business, disassociation with you personally. Free speech is spoken at your own risk.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
And laws against free speech seek to take that responsibility away and hand it over to the government.
#6
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Jews are inferior, Jews rule the world. LOL
#7
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,277
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@oromagi
@TheUnderdog
What is tolerance? What is intolerance? From person to person, they seem to mean something different every time.

Tagging both of you in here because if you two have the same definition I do, then you're both kinda right in my book.
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Mharman
Wikipedia:

Toleration is "the allowing, permitting, or acceptance of an action, idea, object, or person which one dislikes or disagrees with. Political scientist Andrew R. Murphy explains that "We can improve our understanding by defining "toleration" as a set of social or political practices and "tolerance" as a set of attitudes."  Random House Dictionary defines tolerance as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own"

#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Wikipedia:

The paradox of tolerance states that "if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance."
#10
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,277
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@oromagi
I'm asking about what actions are considered "tolerant" or "intolerant." I'm not talking about dictionary definitions (I probably should've clarified that more).

A good measuring stick would be how one answers the question, "What is the worst consequence(s) you can give to someone for their words without crossing ethical or moral boundaries?"

For me, it is a ban from a social media platform, or a defamation lawsuit. I also place limits on both of these. For example, I do not believe in banning people from social media for stating falsehoods; I am only okay with it when they do things like doxx people, stalk their profiles to slam them on posts made years ago, or knowingly and intentionally attempt to incite people against them. As for defamation, there needs to be proven falsity and maliciousness or extremely high-level negligence, although falcity doesn't need to be proven if the issue is private enough; also, there should be no prison time and the worst possible fine should never make them so poor they can't care for their basic needs without a homeless shelter.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
@TheUnderdog
It is impossible for a society to tolerant if it is continually instructed in the ideology of inequality and difference.
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->@oromagi
I'm asking about what actions are considered "tolerant" or "intolerant." I'm not talking about dictionary definitions (I probably should've clarified that more).
  • Dictionaries define the correct usage of words.  You say  "From person to person, [words] seem to mean something different every time" but that's only true of people who fail to rely on dictionaries.  For people who rely on dictionaries, words mean roughly the same thing every time- a distinct advantage in conversation.
A good measuring stick would be how one answers the question, "What is the worst consequence(s) you can give to someone for their words without crossing ethical or moral boundaries?"
  • Death.  Some words are treason or an imminent threat.  If you catch someone giving away your army's position to the enemy, you kill them for that speech.  Most of what Hitler or Stalin or Osama bin Laden did was just talk.
I do not believe in banning people from social media for stating falsehoods ; I am only okay with it when they do things like doxx people, stalk their profiles to slam them on posts made years ago, or knowingly and intentionally attempt to incite people against them.
  • Free speech is a limitation on government, not priviate business.  If government were running social media then I would agree with you but it is not.  Business has the right and obligation to set a far higher standard of conduct then government.  Good government must tolerate all kinds of crap that no responsible businessperson should.
As for defamation, there needs to be proven falsity and maliciousness or extremely high-level negligence, although falcity doesn't need to be proven if the issue is private enough; also, there should be no prison time and the worst possible fine should never make them so poor they can't care for their basic needs without a homeless shelter.
  • This is generally the present case in the US.  Fewer than half the states even have a defamation law on the books.

Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Almost everybody agrees that Nazis must be tolerated.
I’ve met plenty of socialists (and socialism is unfortunately getting more and more popular) that want people they disagree with censored, whether it’s Nazis or people for misgendering because they believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man.

Nazi speech is more frequently limited than most other speech because Nazi speech is so agressive and persistent in its pursuit of incitment, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child porn, fighting words, and threats.
If someone is aggressively and persistently pro choice at a protest, it’s free speech as long as it doesn’t result in people getting physically attacked.  Child porn is not used by Nazis.  Fighting words are free speech.  If you want pro lifers killed, as long as you don’t act on it, it’s free speech.

In 2022, Gallup has support for plural marriage up to 23%. 
People that aren’t bigoted towards the polygamous are still in the minority, and nobody is advocating for censoring the majority who oppose legalizing polygamy.  But eventually, when polygamy is legalized nationwide and enjoys 60% popularity, opposing polygamy would be classified as hate speech.


Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Mharman
@oromagi
I like the definition in post 8.
#15
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,277
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@oromagi
You forgot to @ me.

Anyway, fair enough.

#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Child porn is not used by Nazis.
Something of a sweeping and unverifiable statement.


And Caitlyn Jenner is quite obviously a bloke in drag, with or without a dick. Free speech Bruce, with not a shred of hate. 

And rather than legalizing polygamy, just do away with the archaic marriage contract nonsense.