Not being held hostage by accusations of elitism

[Arwon]

Yes. The whole point of a democratic society is that everyone, EVERYONE, gets to have their voice heard. The moment you say someone doesn't get to have a voice, is the moment you have abandoned democracy.

Free speech doesn't mean anyone is owed a platform, or an audience, or a particular person's attention, or protection from criticism.

It also has to definitionally have limitations where it butts up against other rights. Defamation is an example - people aren't generally regarded as having a right to lie about others. Or to cause bodily danger to others by falsely yelling "fire" or inciting violence.

 

[Commodore]

Free speech doesn't mean anyone is owed a platform, or an audience, or protection from criticism.

Funny you should say that since you were one of the people here who dogpiled on me when I posted about my refusal to listen to a Black Lives Matter supporter who was harassing people outside of a restaurant. I believe when I said the exact same thing as what you just posted in response to criticism of my refusal to listen, I was poo-pooed as being intolerant by you and several others. I was told that I have no right to refuse to listen to someone who was "spreading the word" about an important social issue.

So I guess only the people who aren't advocating the trendy cause of the moment aren't owed a platform or audience, right?

 

[Arwon]

Assuming that was me I'm pretty sure I would have been calling you a dick, not asking for you to be prosecuted.

 

[Commodore]

Assuming that was me I'm pretty sure I would have been calling you a dick, not asking for you to be prosecuted.

I didn't say you were. I was saying that you and others were saying I owed that BLM supporter my attention, yet now you are saying that no one is owed an audience or platform to express themselves. In fact, someone (not you) even said I was violating their right to free speech by not listening to them.

So which is it? Are people owed a platform and audience or aren't they? Because you can't say that some causes deserve it and other don't and still reasonably say you support the concept of free speech.

 

[Arwon]

Firstly, I was addressing your claim that democracy owes everyone the right to be heard, which it doesn't. We should be shouting down, mocking, denigrating and excluding fascists everywhere we can, I don't think that should be particularly controversial.

Secondly, I actually can't find a post of mine in response to you here, which I assume is the thread you were talking about based on my searching for the word restaurant.

 

[Commodore]

Firstly, I was addressing your claim that democracy owes everyone the right to be heard, which it doesn't. We should be shouting down, mocking, denigrating and excluding fascists everywhere we can, I don't think that should be particularly controversial.

But it is controversial. Because if you decide it's okay to shout down one system of belief you set the standard that such behavior is okay when dealing with your opponents. And seeing as humanity tends to go through cycles, there will come a time when your opponents are the ones in charge. And since you have already set a standard of it being acceptable to shout down and mock your opponents, you can expect them to do the exact same to you when they are the ones who have the upper hand. Remember, everyone has a different view on what is good and what is evil and no one really has the right to tell anyone else their particular set of beliefs is invalid or wrong.

Secondly, I actually can't find a post of mine in response to you here, which I assume is the thread you were talking about based on my searching for the word restaurant.

You're right, I misremembered that. My apologies. Although you weren't involved, my basic point still stands that some of the posters here who are now saying free speech does not guarantee one a platform or an audience, did not hold that stance when it was a cause they support being shouted down, ignored, and mocked.

 

[onejayhawk]

My thoughts are that I find it hilarious that you say all this unironically while still having the nerve to call Trump and his supporters fascists and bigots. Not to mention you have, in the past, made numerous calls for violence against those with whom you disagree with politically, while at the same time criticizing your opponents when they make the same calls for violence. You are the very definition of an extremist, and an extremist's opinions and statements don't really mean much in a civilized society.

This echoes my thoughts. The abuser in the OP is very much like the Clinton campaign in this last election. Overuse of X-ist rhetoric is a principle example. Use of shame tactics is another.

The intolerance of intolerance is intolerance thing again?

I am trying to think of an occasion where hypocrisy is a good thing. You're the expert. When should it be used?

J

 

[aelf]

Yes. The whole point of a democratic society is that everyone, EVERYONE, gets to have their voice heard. The moment you say someone doesn't get to have a voice, is the moment you have abandoned democracy. Which is fine, of course. If you don't like democracy, you don't like it and that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. But don't pretend you are fighting for democracy and freedom by saying those who have opinions you disagree with don't deserve to be heard.

You seem to be very confused. In what way is the OP even addressing the idea of democracy? Unless you mean liberal democracy specifically, in which case do note that aside from tolerance, a liberal democracy typically values pluralism and therefore enshrines the rights of minorities, something which the people I'm opposing are against. Therefore, what you're advocating is not any particular idea of democracy as it is widely practised, but rather a form of libertarianism (which traditionally could be reconciled with slavery, ironically).

It boils down to something that has been mentioned: Some freedoms are antithetical to the more basic freedoms or rights enjoyed by others and must hence be limited. This really shouldn't be an alien concept to someone who is so big on the the rule of law.

EDIT: And I find it more than a little nauseating that you seem to be styling yourself and some noble crusader that makes the tough choices everyone else is just too timid to make. There is nothing tough about saying your opponents need to be silenced. In fact, that's taking the easy way out as it shuts out all opposing viewpoints and keeps you from having to actually examine the validity of your own viewpoint. Sorry friend, but you and every other extremist out there are the ones shying away from making the tough choices.

Everyone? No, just the select group of people who call themselves moderates, who apparently would not pass moral judgement on anyone except those who express moral judgement on things that ought to be condemned morally.

So how do they decide that something is wrong? Through the rather uninspired heuristic of whether that thing is legal or not, apparently not realising that the law comes from somewhere. And they bury themselves in such hollowness and contradictions, acting out their own brand of hypocrisy by often being as zealous as the people they deride as zealous. At least the crusader knows he is a crusader, but the holier-than-thou moderate is not aware of his own nature.

 

[Camikaze]

So which is it?

You're assuming that, if a platform is given to one person to speak without being severely criticised, that platform must be given to all others. But it's perfectly logical to say that, whilst you should tolerate the expression of the views of person A, the same tolerance should not be extended to the views of person B. In Australia, for instance, it is unlawful to say something that is (inter alia) likely to humiliate or intimidate someone on the basis of race. It's nonsensical to conclude on the basis of that legal fact that we must therefore restrict the speech of everyone. Basic (though perhaps not classical) liberal principles suggest that there are limits on speech, and these can be politically asymmetric. So, it might simultaneously be the case that you can be rightly criticised for being overly sensitive about the speech of Black Lives Matter protestors, and for not being sensitive enough about the speech of racists. It isn't hypocritical, then, to say that, although political views which are compatible with the peaceful continuance of a liberal democracy should be tolerated, political views which impede the peaceful continuance of a liberal democracy should not be tolerated. The question then is simply how compatible different views are with the core principles of society. In most liberal democracies, a certain degree of racist speech is seen as incompatible.

Of course, all this is a little beside the point, because the OP isn't talking about tolerance in the sense of allowing someone to speak. It's talking about how we should respond to particular views, assuming they are allowed to be spoken.

 

[Arwon]

But it is controversial. Because if you decide it's okay to shout down one system of belief you set the standard that such behavior is okay when dealing with your opponents. And seeing as humanity tends to go through cycles, there will come a time when your opponents are the ones in charge. And since you have already set a standard of it being acceptable to shout down and mock your opponents, you can expect them to do the exact same to you when they are the ones who have the upper hand. Remember, everyone has a different view on what is good and what is evil and no one really has the right to tell anyone else their particular set of beliefs is invalid or wrong.

Not *opponents*. Nobody cares about libertarians or christian democrats or big business parties of capital or rural agrarian parties. Just actual fascists. The postmodern turn hasn't gone so far that I need to relativise authoritarian ethnic supremacy as just another valid viewpoint exchanging ideas within the rich tapestry of political discourse. That stuff does not use speech in good faith, and it hates and wpplants to hurt many of my friends and many others. They're the bloody fash, man.

 

[warpus]

I don't think we should be accepting racism as a valid viewpoint. Most western democracies have constitutions that are incompatible with racism to begin with.

However, we should of course allow people to make racist statements, if they so wish.

 

[W|M]

What part of not accepting racism involves allowing people to be racist?

 

[Hygro]

"Not allowing" someone else to be whatever they are requires some kind of method.

 

[Recon Rover]

However, we should of course allow people to make racist statements, if they so wish.

Reminds me of a Monthy Pyton skit:

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

 

[W|M]

"Not allowing" someone else to be whatever they are requires some kind of method.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What part of not accepting racism involves allowing people to be racist?

Off the top of my head, anything that doesn't negatively impact anyone else. So a "white separatist" (that's the term they prefer these days) would be allowed to move out of a neighborhood, merely because there are too many non-white people there. He can also vote for a candidate for office because he believes that candidate represents the best interests of the "white race."

Racist speech gets trickier. So much depends on context. The same behavior might be allowable in one situation but not in another. A burning cross or a Nazi swastika displayed in public view - even if it's on private property - is an implicit threat, and therefore shouldn't be allowed, imo. Shouting "Heil Trump" at a political rally or private meeting is incendiary; doing it while standing outside a mosque or a synagogue would be crossing the line for me.

 

[warpus]

What part of not accepting racism involves allowing people to be racist?

The reasonable part? You let people say what they want and then you disagree with them.

 

[W|M]

White supremacy isn't preferring Nirvana over Radiohead, it's a serious and dangerous problem that needs to be stopped, regardless of empty liberal platitudes

 

[Yeekim]

Not *opponents*. Nobody cares about libertarians or christian democrats or big business parties of capital or rural agrarian parties. Just actual fascists.

Some people seem to have a rather broad definition of "fascist", though:

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Off the top of my head, anything that doesn't negatively impact anyone else. So a "white separatist" (that's the term they prefer these days) would be allowed to move out of a neighborhood, merely because there are too many non-white people there. He can also vote for a candidate for office because he believes that candidate represents the best interests of the "white race."

Racist speech gets trickier. So much depends on context. The same behavior might be allowable in one situation but not in another. A burning cross or a Nazi swastika displayed in public view - even if it's on private property - is an implicit threat, and therefore shouldn't be allowed, imo. Shouting "Heil Trump" at a political rally or private meeting is incendiary; doing it while standing outside a mosque or a synagogue would be crossing the line for me.

The problem with "doesn't negatively impact anyone else" is children. A healthy environment in which various religious beliefs are represented, including atheism, allows children to be raised in the idea that there are choices to be made. Those available choices are deemed to be not detrimental to society. Conservative and liberal views on economics are a similar sphere of choices, even though I do couch my arguments against conservative economics in terms that indicate that *I* believe they are detrimental they remain a viable choice.

But when we allow racism the respectable position of being openly displayed and then argued against we are presenting it as a viable choice that society can afford to allow. It isn't. If my father had been allowed the "free speech" in public that he exercised in his own home to indoctrinate me into racism I would not have had the early experience of that dichotomy. Without such early experience for me it is almost a certainty that his poisonous views would inhabit my own children, so I am extremely satisfied with the results of curtailing his freedom.