The point is that you are not a reliable judge of what is evil and thus not a reliable judge of what should not be tolerated.
Since apparently it still isn't clear to you what they're saying, Nazis, like many other authoritarian regimes, punished criticism of them. That has the exact same logic as yours, they think they're doing the right thing, thus criticizing them is promoting evil and thus should be shut down (another very visible example of this would be the various forms of "hurt sentiments" related issues in various Asian countries). This is why "intolerance of intolerance" is a fallacy. It presumes that those being accused of intolerance are doing it in bad faith rather than out of a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing.
All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed. But people equate that with speech without consequence and, even more, that they are entitled to someone else's forum for their speech. In authoritarian regimes we are talking about real criminal-type punishments. You're purposely conflating these ideas together when they are different.
If nobody wants to listen to your terrible idea or give you a forum for them then that's their right. If people don't want to associate with you because of what you believe that is their right. If people want to convince others to not give you that forum, that's their free speech. We don't have to give a forum to the very ideas that lead to real punishment of criticism.
I think you know jack-shit about totalitarian regimes.
For example USSR used a shit-ton of unofficial punishment styles. E.g. small time dissidents would have a hard time getting a job. Employers would be in the know about certain people they should steer away from. But it was illegal to not work in USSR :) So technically nobody was punishing those dissidents. But they had a hard time to make ends meet AND they could be easily sentenced for being unemployed if they started causing trouble.
Influential groups of society punishing people for wrongthink is pretty damn close.
What is protesting then? If I protest against a Nazi speaker at a university, which side of this totalitarianism am I on? Am I the influential group punishing someone for wrongthink? The implication here is yes I am. So apparently a healthy "non-totalitarian" society cannot allow protest...
Many (if not 99%) of silenced speakers were not nazis. Unless everything right of X is nazi and everything left is commie. Which is bullshit.
The „influential group“ refers to „consequences“ like making people loose their jobs after spamming their employers for controversial (at best) speech.
Protest is fine. But preventing speech is fine. Do you want to stay outside of a meeting room with a banner? Cool. Do you want to politely ask uncomfortable questions? Great. Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? That's where it gets bad.
> Do you want to prevent those people from speaking?
Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum.
> spamming their employers
That's harassment. Harassment is already bad on it's own it doesn't have to be mixed into this. But outside of harassment if an employer doesn't want to associate with someone because of their speech, they're free to do that.
When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking.
Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives.
Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions in his heyday. But he left the politics long ago and was trying to make a fair living. Then his opponents from the other far- side tracked him down and „informed“ the employer about the dude's past.
> another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking.
How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed?
> Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line.
You can hold whatever political views you want. But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. One might want to change the law so short people can't vote -- so they broadcast that view far and wide to make that consequence happen. But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change.
The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.
> How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed?
Looks like that does happen. No? Or just pushing university administrations to cancel speakers they just approved.
> But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. <...> But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change.
In a democracy, people decide on political views by voting. As long as people keep their views to themselves and don't harass coworkers, why would we care what views they hold? Unless the person in question starts calling for physical abuse etc. But then it's a police matter, not lynching crowds.
That specific case is very wrong in many cases. Dude basically caved in and got out of politics. Yet his political enemies carried on. What's the lesson? If you ever say something contraversial, the only way is to double-down, because you'll be hunted forever? Is voicing a contraversial opinion in one's youth worse than doing heavy crimes? Since ex-prisoners re-integration is quite a big thing.
I don't understand the point. Make people scared to step out of line? Create whole underclass of people who have nothing to loose for the rest of their lives? Both options are straight out of USSR playbook.
> The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.
Today's social pressure is used for barbarism. And it's so twisted that it's not only not stopping good thing, but even pushing wrong things. E.g. we had LGBT protest. Some people held a counter-protest. Then one famous LGBT dude went to counter-protesters, forced himself onto one of the main counter-protesters and kissed him. Sexual assault in public right there. Yet many shitheads went on to proclaim how cool this is. And LGBT dude didn't get into any legal problems. Wonder what would happen if a counter-protester would do the same to some girl on the other side. Somehow I really doubt the consequences would be the same :) Sort of like black vs White capitalisation BS.
People act on their political views by voting -- the decided on political views through what they hear and read. We agree that as long as people keep their views to themselves we don't care what views they hold. And we obviously agree that harassment is bad, lynching is bad, sexual harassment is bad. These continued straw men don't really add anything here.
> E.g. we had LGBT protest.
In the same city where you were? Did you personally see this protest? What do the LGBT protesters want? And there were counter-protesters? What do the counter-protesters want?
Anyway, you've provided all these weird small examples but I don't really get the point. If you feel personally aggrieved by how society reacts to your views, I'm sorry too bad. Society is free to react negatively or positively! Complaining that people who really don't like terrible ideas should keep that to themselves isn't very convincing to me.
If you take all the harassment away, which with both agree is bad, then it's just two groups of people expressing their opinions. If university administrators are convinced to change their minds because of protests then that just means the protest worked. We both agree that protests are good and protests exist to achieve a goal. Not all protests are good and not all goals are good for society but that doesn't matter.
> People act on their political views by voting -- the decided on political views through what they hear and read. We agree that as long as people keep their views to themselves we don't care what views they hold. And we obviously agree that harassment is bad, lynching is bad, sexual harassment is bad. These continued straw men don't really add anything here.
Running for an office with political views is part of acting on their political views. If you keep your political views to yourself at workplace, but you run for an office with them... Should your coworkers care or not? Or are you allowed to have any political views as long as you don't participate in the democratical process? :)
> What do the LGBT protesters want? And there were counter-protesters? What do the counter-protesters want?
I'm not sure if exact topics change wether sexual assault is fine or not. But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you.
> Complaining that people who really don't like terrible ideas should keep that to themselves isn't very convincing to me.
Political ideas should be discussed at political level. Debates, elections and so on. Not all-out war where stepping out of line may ruin one's life. Especially with today's highly polarized political climate where „terrible ideas“ label is attached very easily.
> If you take all the harassment away, which with both agree is bad, then it's just two groups of people expressing their opinions. If university administrators are convinced to change their minds because of protests then that just means the protest worked.
IMO it's closer to mob rule forcing employers or university administration act in one way or another.
In any case, if the opinions are not illegal (= promoting violence etc), refusing employment or forbidding on-campus speech for such opinions feels a wee authoritarian. There's a very very fine line between employers/universities rights and society forcing dominant narrative and sanitising public discourse.
Would you like to be fired if some idea you hold would be seen as „terrible“ by your employer (or a mob forces them to act so)? Given how what is acceptable changed in the past decade or two, who knows how it will change in next few decades.
> Should your coworkers care or not? Or are you allowed to have any political views as long as you don't participate in the democratical process? :)
If think your political views involve taking the rights away from your coworkers or even causing them to feel unsafe I think they have the right to care? If I'm your coworker and I want to take away your rights, I think you'd want to care about that right? You're not just going to sit on you ass like a chump and do nothing.
> But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you.
Why would someone be against same sex civic partnership? If you're not homosexual, it doesn't impact you at all.
> Especially with today's highly polarized political climate where „terrible ideas“ label is attached very easily.
And yet terrible ideas seem more common these days than ever.
> IMO it's closer to mob rule forcing employers or university administration act in one way or another.
What's the difference between a peaceful mob and a protest? People getting together to affect change is a "mob" if you don't like why they're saying and a "protest" if you do.
> refusing employment or forbidding on-campus speech for such opinions feels a wee authoritarian.
Sure, and you know what is also authoritarian? Authoritarians sharing authoritarian ideas, convincing others, and implementing. If you're tolerant of intolerance than you up with nothing but intolerance and you achieve authoritarianism that way. It's not like there's no historical precedent for this. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
> There's a very very fine line between employers/universities rights and society forcing dominant narrative and sanitising public discourse.
Yes there is a fine line. I'm accepting of that fine line but you want to just eliminate it. It's not that you for for free speech rights, it's just that you want one group to have them and another group to be restricted from having them. You accept that speech is important but you don't grasp why -- because it's meant to accomplish something. Speech is powerful, useful, and even dangerous.
> Would you like to be fired if some idea you hold would be seen as „terrible“ by your employer (or a mob forces them to act so)?
I'm willing to accept that. I believe my own political ideas are open and accepting enough that my coworkers and employers wouldn't care. And if they did care, then I wouldn't want to be employed by them.
> Given how what is acceptable changed in the past decade or two, who knows how it will change in next few decades.
> > But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you.
> Why would someone be against same sex civic partnership? If you're not homosexual, it doesn't impact you at all.
So it's fine to sexually assault a protester if you don't get why protester may hold such opinion?
> Yes there is a fine line. I'm accepting of that fine line but you want to just eliminate it. It's not that you for for free speech rights, it's just that you want one group to have them and another group to be restricted from having them. You accept that speech is important but you don't grasp why -- because it's meant to accomplish something. Speech is powerful, useful, and even dangerous.
Are you saying „you“ as in me? Or talking about hypothetical „you“? If this is former, I'm for free speech. But those who want to use their „free speech“ to prevent other from speaking are not exercising „free speech“. If people would use such „free speech“ to prevent people from your political side, would you still look at it the same way? Or does different standards apply here, because you believe your ideas are so open and accepting nobody could do that?
> Sure, and you know what is also authoritarian? Authoritarians sharing authoritarian ideas, convincing others, and implementing. If you're tolerant of intolerance than you up with nothing but intolerance and you achieve authoritarianism that way. It's not like there's no historical precedent for this. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
So it's authoritarianism one way or another. Nice and accepting political ideas right there...
Since apparently it still isn't clear to you what they're saying, Nazis, like many other authoritarian regimes, punished criticism of them. That has the exact same logic as yours, they think they're doing the right thing, thus criticizing them is promoting evil and thus should be shut down (another very visible example of this would be the various forms of "hurt sentiments" related issues in various Asian countries). This is why "intolerance of intolerance" is a fallacy. It presumes that those being accused of intolerance are doing it in bad faith rather than out of a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing.