Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?
We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.
People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though.
Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech?
If we agree with you that all intolerant speech except for speech which is intolerant of intolerance should be prohibited, why should such speech not be prohibited, when X != "intolerant speech"?
> Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech?
Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like:
"Parents must feed their children"
Into a ridiculous alike of:
"We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children"
Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech.
The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question:
2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry.
Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.
> Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)?
Yes.
> In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote?
I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections.
> Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.
I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps.
I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work.
Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people?
>Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work.
I said nothing along those lines.
>how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones
I said nothing of the sort.
>maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. I think telling people they can't express their beliefs or advocate for what they see as their own interests is the first step toward a shooting war. If you tell people they can't express their beliefs, you are telling them you can't live peacefully alongside them as countrymen. In the case of many of the people you are calling intolerant, I don't believe that's how it is.
> OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people?
You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I have no problem with a country instituting an immigration policy, nor am I intolerant of people not born in my country. You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale. These ideas are not at odds, and won't be no matter how many times you try and make it sound that way.
At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.) In short, it's apples and oranges.
> I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant.
"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law. We don't make murder illegal because people think it's mean to kill people, or because a divine deity said not to. We do it because it infringes on their right to live.
If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality. End of. Reality is reality and beliefs are beliefs, and while they occasionally agree, one is real, and the other is not.
>You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying.
I'm using the definition you gave. That's it. If you want to revise the definition, feel free.
>You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale.
No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
>At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.)
I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant. Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
>"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law.
Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
>If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality.
I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?
> No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
That is not intolerance.
> I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant.
How is your example being flawed irrelevant?
> Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
No, it doesn't. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country. If they are not vaccinated against certain diseases, for example. Or if they have outstanding warrants for their arrest in other countries (unless of course they're seeking asylum).
You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.
> Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person. And in turn, anyone who intends that harm and engages in such speech, either for actual beliefs or simply to make money off of those susceptible to that sort of manipulation, should be punished.
> I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?
Nobody is killing anyone. You and people who think like you will be outvoted, and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.
It is according to the definition you gave. That much seems clear.
>How is your example being flawed irrelevant?
I was referring to your desired immigration system. Regardless, I explained why it was irrelevant immediately after the line you quoted.
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
>There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country.
Relevance? The word "legitimate" did not show up in your definition. No exception for being unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights was carved out for those with "legitimate reasons" for doing so.
>You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.
According to your definition, the two are orthogonal.
>Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person.
What exactly do you mean by "intends"? If I advocate for, say, deporting illegal immigrants, and I do so because I think it's in my self-interest for that to be done (whether or not I'm correct), but I hold no ill-will toward said illegal immigrants, and maybe even consider it unfortunate that our interests are in opposition, would you say that I "intend" them harm, simply because I know that economic harm will come to them if the policy for which I advocate is adopted?
Do I need to harbor some sort of malice in my mind in order to intend them harm, or is it enough to merely know it will happen as a (perhaps unfortunate and undesired) consequence?
>Nobody is killing anyone.
Then why ban people from saying what they want?
>You and people who think like you will be outvoted
Maybe. Let's hope not.
>and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.
Why should anyone trust you to ensure that prosperity rains upon them when you talk about them like that?
