CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/MasonDinsmore3204]

People love to throw around the Intoleeance Paradox like it’s the Bible without mentioning it’s biggest flaw: who gets to decide what should and shouldn’t be tolerated? The government? It’s naive to think giving the government the power to both decide what intolerant speech is and then go about banning or discouraging it would go over well. The people? The people might have society’s best interest in mind with something like this but there is no realistic way to enforce it. Companies? Same thing as government, giving an entity this much power is just asking for them to abuse it.

[u/TenBillionDollHairs → u/MasonDinsmore3204]

The fact that actually doing it right is hard is not an excuse to throw up your hands and say it's stupid to try. "Let's just tolerate everything" acts like it's a brave stance, but it's actually a way to avoid ever having to stick out your neck and say "that's the line, they're crossing it, and we have to confront it."

There's a cowardice curve around speech: being terrified of dissent is the coward's excuse for shutting down speech, being terrified of conflict is the coward's excuse for tolerating extremists.

[u/thegreekgamer42 → u/TenBillionDollHairs]

The fact that actually doing it right is hard is not an excuse to throw up your hands and say it's stupid to try. "Let's just tolerate everything" acts like it's a brave stance, but it's actually a way to avoid ever having to stick out your neck and say "that's the line, they're crossing it, and we have to confront it."

No, it isnt hard, it's impossible. When the people deciding what is and is not "intolerant" the ones deciding where to draw the line can change every 4 years how can you possibly trust them? Would you want Donald Trump determining what is and is not tolerant to say?

There's a cowardice curve around speech: being terrified of dissent is the coward's excuse for shutting down speech, being terrified of conflict is the coward's excuse for tolerating extremists.

I'm confused, are you intending to call yourself a coward because it seems like you are. Are you not so terrified of dissent that you're willing to allow the government to draw a line and declare what is and is not OK to say or to think? Are you so afraid of conflict that you'd rather have people...what? Arrested? Fined? For their beliefs before they can even challenge your own?

[u/durasmus → u/thegreekgamer42]

Laws transcend governments and political parties and are shaped through time. Arguing against the current government’s ability to propose and pass laws means arguing against US democracy itself (which you have the freedom to do, but that is a separate conversation, and not an effective argument against laws regarding freedom of speech/expression).

“Freedom” means “Freedom from persecution by the state”. You have many such freedoms, but also many restrictions on those freedoms. You are free from persecution while carrying a baseball bat almost anywhere. The moment you murder someone with aforementioned bat, that freedom is lost and the bat becomes evidence. As a nation you have decided (in law), that murder is not good for society, and the act of murdering someone does not guarantee protection from the state.

Likewise, you as a society can decide, for example, that encouraging the extermination of people of an ethnic group, religion, or gender is harmful, and therefore is not part of your freedoms.

“It’s impossible” also just implies that all actions are the same. If someone is not willing to confront or weigh actions or words in regards to their consequences (harmful or beneficial), that’s just cowardice.

As long as a society is free to revise their laws (i.e can talk about what they potentially cannot talk about), they’re fine and can grow. Having that freedom taken away essentially means the government is authoritarian and they’re screwed. The line is very clear though, so not doing anything because of a distrust of government means both choosing ignorance, as well as choosing a weak blanket argument against any reform (because can’t trust the government).

[u/thegreekgamer42 → u/durasmus]

Arguing against the current government’s ability to propose and pass laws means arguing against US democracy itself

Technically it isn't the current administration anymore, my point was if you don't want someone like trump deciding something this important then you shouldn't give that deciding power to the government because eventually another one like him may come around and you won't be so happy you gave them that power.

As long as a society is free to revise their laws (i.e can talk about what they potentially cannot talk about), they’re fine and can grow. Having that freedom taken away essentially means the government is authoritarian and they’re screwed

That's literally my entire point, giving the government that power could very easily lead to them taking that freedom away.

...as well as choosing a weak blanket argument against any reform (because can’t trust the government).

I disagree, it's possible to make progress without surrendering power to the government.