[ SECRET POST #3045 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3045 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 028 secrets from Secret Submission Post #435.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

why is being gay good and something to be tolerated?

Because it hurts no one. Two guys or gals having sex, getting married, and raising a family hurts NO ONE.

why is objecting to gay marriage bad and something not to be tolerated?

Because it hurts someone -- it blocks TONS of legal benefits to gay couples, for one.

at the point where you're actually trying to rule out certain kinds of speech

You can say what you want. But freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences -- just legal ones. OP is complaining about social consequences.

we're morally condemning certain kinds of speech.

As well we should. People have the right to say/think whatever they want. And WE have the right to ostracize them if we find it reprehensible.

[(Anonymous)]

THANK YOU


+1

[(Anonymous)]

again, i have no problem with morally condemning speech. it's the grounds for condemning it that i'm arguing about. because people seem to just not even bother really justifying it.

& i find that basis, of harm, really unsatisfactory and uncompelling, and to me it looks like it's hardly even a justification. because a hypothetical person who's against gay marriage* would say "but why, gay marriage IS harmful, for such-and-such a reason!" and that's the argument that really needs to be defeated. if you want to morally condemn this kind of speech, it needs to be on the basis that gay marriage is good and gay people are human beings and that actions or speech against gay people and gay rights is absolutely and positively morally wrong.

but that has nothing to do with tolerance, so stop fucking talking about tolerance, especially when you want to be intolerant towards things. if you want to make a judgment about what kind of society you want to have and what the real, positive, concrete limits of that kind of society ought to be, that requires concrete judgment.

*which, again, to be clear here, i'm not against gay marriage, i'm highly in favor of gay marriage, everyone get gay married now

[(Anonymous)]

gay marriage IS harmful, for such-and-such a reason

And we can evaluate if that justification holds up. We all have brains and the ability to analyze and judge evidence. If it's shoddy, then of course we're going to reject it.

but that has nothing to do with tolerance, so stop fucking talking about tolerance

It has everything to do with tolerance. The tolerance of intolerance is itself oppressive. If you tolerate hate speech against women, you're being intolerant towards women. If you tolerate the sexual abuse of little boys, you're oppressing and being intolerant of little boys' rights. It's the same with LGBT rights.

[(Anonymous)]

And we can evaluate if that justification holds up. We all have brains and the ability to analyze and judge evidence. If it's shoddy, then of course we're going to reject it.

quite. but my point is, that's a conversation that has very little to do with tolerance and intolerance.

It has everything to do with tolerance. The tolerance of intolerance is itself oppressive. If you tolerate hate speech against women, you're being intolerant towards women. If you tolerate the sexual abuse of little boys, you're oppressing and being intolerant of little boys' rights. It's the same with LGBT rights.

but i feel like that, in some sense, makes my point that tolerance doesn't make very much sense as a terminal value. because just talking about being tolerant, you wind up in all these situations where tolerance of different things directly conflicts, and so you have to look to something else to justify where you draw the line, in the end. you have to justify it by means of something besides tolerance.

[(Anonymous)]

"quite. but my point is, that's a conversation that has very little to do with tolerance and intolerance. "

It does. Anything that violates a person's rights will always be a form of intolerance. It's why religious arguments against abortion and gay marriage are bunk. Because those violate a person's rights. Whereas a person who has moral objections to abortion/gay marriage still has the right to practice their religion but they don't have the right to impose that religion on others.

In short, it's not intolerant to not tolerate the intolerance of others.

"tolerance doesn't make very much sense as a terminal value"

It does. But you have to consider the overall net effect. If tolerating a person's intolerance is violating someone's rights, then it's not "tolerance" because the net effect is INTOLERANT due to the violation of rights.

There are multiple factors to consider, of course, but you can't tolerate child rape and then say you're open-minded. You're not. Because the toleration of that action is intolerant towards children and thus is, overall, INTOLERANT.

[blitzwing]

If you tolerate hate speech against women, you're being intolerant towards women.

I don't think so. A person allowing someone to say "women suck, women belong back in the kitchen" is not committing an intolerant act toward women. Only the person actually saying those things is promoting intolerance. The person letting them speak is just allowing free speech.

[(Anonymous)]

shut up weeb

[blitzwing]

[elialshadowpine]

A+ gif use. (I think I need to go re-watch Aristocats now.)

[(Anonymous)]

The person letting them speak is just allowing free speech.

No. That person, by not challenging them, is allowing that intolerance to spread.

[blitzwing]

No. That person, by not challenging them, is allowing that intolerance to spread.

You don't defeat ignorance by silencing people. You defeat ignorance with education and spreading awareness.

If we're in a group discussing homosexuality, I do more to spread tolerance and knowledge by engaging in a discussion than by shouting over a homophobe to prevent people from being able to hear their words.

[(Anonymous)]

I never said shouting over them. I said challenging them. Yes, a discussion counts, but so does letting them speak, then presenting a more tolderant viewpoint. Anything but remaining silent. Silence is unspoken consent to their viewpoint.

[(Anonymous)]

Urgh, I hate this whole concept of silent consent, because not everyone is equipped to challenge hate speech or hateful behavior or whatever. If you're cripplingly shy, socially anxious, or bad with words, or you don't know the person and what they're capable of. There are obvious ones like language barriers, but sometimes.. you just can't do it. I'm fine in text, but I am terrible at expressing myself vocally, and the idea of telling off a stranger no matter how much of a piece of shit I think they are-- that makes my blood run cold just thinking about it. I have only recently progressed to a point that I can order for myself at a restaurant. But if I don't tell a co-worker/neighbor/stranger on the bus that what they said or did just now was offensive, I am part of the problem and consenting to their hate? It is just not that simple. I burn with the need to stand up for what I believe in, but I fear challenging someone's world view as strongly as I fear spiders, airplanes, heights. The silent consent thing is bullshit, because I'm not the only one who isn't capable of even gently admonishing a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend. Yeah, if some guy at a party is telling sexist jokes, or balking at racism, there are bound to be a few people who just don't care, or even agree with him. And there are people who disagree, but don't feel like making waves. But there are a TON of people who absolutely freeze up when it comes to confrontation, and I don't think they should be lumped into the same category as the selfish and bigoted.

[blitzwing]

It sounds like you've come along way, anon. You should be proud. Standing up to opinionated people can be tough for anyone. I hope you'll one day get to the point where it's a breeze for you. If not, well, I think most people understand that there are always some people who can't do casual conflict, and it's not a moral failing.

[blitzwing]

I never said shouting over them. I said challenging them.

We must have crossed wires with the meaning of "tolerate hate speech". To me, tolerating speech is allowing someone to have their say. That doesn't mean letting them have their ideas go criticized. So I think we actually agree on that subject?

[(Anonymous)]

Only if you mistyped this sentence: That doesn't mean letting them have their ideas go criticized. and instead meant uncriticized. Because somehow those ideas that are against a group of people for being different from some arbitrary 'normal' – those ideas need to DIAF.

[blitzwing]

Yes, I did mean "uncriticized", haha, sorry. For some reason Firefox flags uncriticized as misspelled (maybe it's not an actual word?) and I must have just clicked it to correct it, not paying attention to what it was changed to. My bad.

[(Anonymous)]

DA - I think the question then becomes, why are they allowing them free speech? Assuming they're not the government, allowing someone a platform is not actually a right, it's a privilege that the owner of that space is allowed to revoke. Who they choose to allow and why says something about their own position.

[blitzwing]

Sure. Context is important.

[(Anonymous)]

Separation of church and state. No, you can't take away someone's rights because big ol' skydaddy say it was bad.

[sabotabby]

Well said.

[(Anonymous)]

Love your icon!