sorry i got my rhetoric ™️ wrong last time i am just attempting to illustrate the thesis of Tolerance is not a moral precept by Yonatan Zunger so check that out if ur curious thanks babes <3

[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

  • SSFC KDT (MOVED)@mastodon.cloud
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now hold on. Nobody said not tolerating meant suppressing. It means opposing.

    That… that’s bigot rhetoric, and is full circle to the issue here. “You can’t call me out for using the N word because MAH FREE SPEACH”

    I agree with you about free speech – and I would also argue that it extends to forums wanting freedom to choose what they contain.

    There’s always other forums. Private forums controlling their content isn’t silencing. That’s not how it works.

    • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      40% of Millennials are onboard with limiting free speech.

      https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

      That’s an alarmingly high number. I’m not “pro” offensive speech against anyone, but having the government limit it… that’s a whole different conversation. I think a lot of younger people aren’t making that distinction and are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That worries me. Free speech is there to protect ideas from whatever the prevailing status quo at the time is… Galileo was found guilty of heresy, was banned from teaching, and sentenced to house arrest, because he said the Earth went around the Sun. Without free speech, how would people speak out against and challenge what they see as wrong with those in power?

      • SSFC KDT (MOVED)@mastodon.cloud
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re trying to tie a different issue to the discussion here and it’s simply non sequitur.

        We’re not talking about restricting speech at a legal level, we’re talking about opposing bad speech with good speech or by cultivating private fora where good speech is encouraged and bad speech discouraged.

        You literally jumped down the pitfall of the rhetoric of the bigoted folks that I alluded to. Excellent aim, wrong target.

        • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the distinction needs to be more clearly made, which is why I was trying to make it. A lot of people talk about opposing bad speech, and while you and I may believe that should only be at the social level, not a legal one, 40% of Millennials are missing that distinction, as it’s one that is rarely called and and just assumed people “get it”. Those assumptions lead to poor conclusions, those conclusions lead to action, and we lose our rights. I don’t think being clear about where the line is drawn is ever a bad thing.

          People with less than pure motives can make a very compelling argument for suppressing speech to people who aren’t aware of the pitfalls. Schools used to teach this, but based on the statistics, it seems like the message is getting lost.