• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    4·
    11 hours ago

    “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

    This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.

    You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.

    I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      1·
      7 hours ago

      Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.

      From context

      Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties

      and key words

      only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe

      and my direct statement

      speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty

      I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.

      Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 hours ago

        Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.

        By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          11·
          5 hours ago

          Complaining about semantics isn’t the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.

          The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you’re willing to undermine rights for expressions that won’t actually harm/threaten, then I don’t care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.

          By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?

          No & already answered.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            1·
            5 hours ago

            I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.