JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[DGuller]

It's okay to debate and discuss.  What is not okay is creating an environment where contrary statements on certain subjects can't even be brought up, because bringing them up will get you canceled.  Not only is it wrong for idealistic reasons, but it's also just idiotic from a pragmatic perspective:  you can't solve problems that you can't honestly brainstorm.  It's also bad politically, because self-censorship builds resentment, and resentment builds fascism.

[viper37]

What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?

In the United States? Nothing. I do, however, support the rights of apostates and malcontents in Muslim majority countries though, and they do have serious problems being heard (though less now with the internet). I also slightly resent the tendency of conservative Muslims in western countries to present themselves as speaking for the entire community, but then conservative Christians do the same shit. That probably cannot be helped, that is just how those things tend to work.

Like Republicans speaking for the right, or the likes of AOC speaking for the left.

The silent majority is always ignored.

[viper37]

Is thinking or talking critically of something the same as intolerance?

Not at all.

Blacks are an inferior species is intolerance.  There is no debate, you are making a baseless affirmation that is as easily disproven as the flat earth theory.

People who menstruate are women is not intolerance. Just as if I was saying "people who speak French in Canada" meaning French Canadians.  There are other people than French Canadians who speak french, so if I use the term "French canadians" everyone knows who I'm talking about, and if you are french speaker in Canada who does not identify as French Canadian and you are offended by this, we, as a society, should not bend over this all the way to avoid offending you.  Some people are trying on purpose to be offended and they should be disregarded.

[The Brain]

Doesn't sound like a paradox to me. Sounds like a contradiction.

Hard to have a paradox without contradiction.

A paradox only appears to be a contradiction, it isn't an actual contradiction.

[The Brain]

Btw DG, were you spoofing someone when you talked about salary negotiations earlier?

[Solmyr]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

[Razgovory]

The intolerance of intolerance is what tonitrus was complaining about.

The intolerance here refers to intolerance of speech, not a class of wrong opinion regarded as intolerant in some way.

"Yeah, well the political campaign to throw Jews into ovens seems to won over most Americans, but at they still let us complain about it."

I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I would hazard a guess that whatever it was, it was not made well.

Wrong intolerant opinions became wrong intolerant policy.

[Tamas]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

True. But that does not make all consequences right.

[Sheilbh]

Not sure if this is super-relevant but an interesting podcast with Jacob Levy on his book which is around the (possibly irreconcilable) tension between rationalism and pluralism within liberalism:
https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/rationalism-pluralism-freedom

[Josquius]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

True. But that does not make all consequences right.

Yes. A bullet in the head for saying the wrong thing - bad.
Being fired for saying the wrong thing and refusing to apologise - good business sense.

[The Brain]

Not sure if this is super-relevant but an interesting podcast with Jacob Levy on his book which is around the (possibly irreconcilable) tension between rationalism and pluralism within liberalism:
https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/rationalism-pluralism-freedom

Executive summary?

[The Brain]

"He is doing something I don't like, so I will escalate until he stops doing it" is a horrible way to do human interaction in a society.

[DGuller]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

That's a 1984 definition of freedom.  When the "consequences" of exercising freedom are prohibitive, you really do not have freedom.

[Sheilbh]

Executive summary?

There's a tension between rationalism (which is about protecting the rights of the individual and may enhance the powers of the state to do so at the expense of intermediate societies, like universities, churches, mosques, states, the old corporate bodies) v pluralism (which is about protecting the right to free association/self-governance who may oppress the individual, the intermediary bodies). And this actually runs through the liberal tradition, both in libertarian and more egalitarian liberal views.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

for the majority of the populace the result of that is just as much a destruction of freedom of speech as if the censorship came beforehand.