Tolerance

[Monty Cantsin]

Is a tolerant society one that tolerates only tolerant things being said, or is a tolerant society one that tolerates anything being said?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

That's a good and important question. I think that tolerance needs to come to include the words of bigots because otherwise...well the society itself wouldn't entirely be tolerant. I guess you have to take the good with the bad and concede that some people will say things that make others uncomfortable or worse, but realise that if a society self-censored and made it so that only tolerant things were allowed, then all the people would have to become intolerant to some degree of the words of others.

[StartToday]

A tolerant society is one that tolerates the words of bigots. It is important to remember that tolerance is not acceptance; while tolerating such people to spew their venom, a tolerant society can also actively speak out against it.

Also, the censorship of bigots leads to the censorship of others. Much like the recent radio DJs being fired in the US for making racist remarks. If a group can get offended and demand that Don Imus be fired, everybody loses. Now people have to be afraid of offending people, which will limit free speech. And if they aren't afraid of offending people and just go ahead and say whatever they are thinking, they have to pay the price.

I think that in the case of the radio DJs being fired, people need to just learn to switch stations and stop getting their feelings hurt. They're adults, after all.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A democratic society protects its members from bigotry, among other things.

[black magick hustla]

Depends.

The mechanisms of the state are not ours, and as such, there is nothing wrong in not tolerating, even to a violent extent, scum. I don't have a problem with confronting violently politically active racists.

In a post-revolutionary society, I don't think racism will be tolerated. Even outside legal means, racists are going to be ostracized, and even sometimes, attacked violently.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The state or whatever given public governing body must have a monopoly on physical repression of oppressors, like politically/socially active bigots in this case.

[luxemburg89]

A tolerant society is one that tolerates the words of bigots.

A tolerant society, as you seem to suggest, is a rediculous one I want no part of. If victims of persecution are allowed to be continually persecuted by the persecutors then something is wrong with society. Why should racists be allowed to air their views - they are inherently wrong and have a dangerous effect on society, we should protect the innocent members of society, not the bastards that use prejudice and bigotry to persecute others. By your suggestion, the KKK should still be allowed to exist.

[LSD]

Is a tolerant society one that tolerates only tolerant things being said, or is a tolerant society one that tolerates anything being said?

I guess that tepends on what one means by "tolerant". The word has acquired a great deal of political baggage over the years and connotatively speaking, at this point it means many things to many people, often contradictorially.

Besides, I don't think it really matters. We aren't fighting to establish "tolerance", we're fighting to establish freedom, in the full sense of that word.

In my eyes it's fairly obvious that that freedom must include the freedom to speak one's mind without fear of state repression, although I've long since learned that not everyone shares that viewpoint.


In a post-revolutionary society, I don't think racism will be tolerated. Even outside legal means, racists are going to be ostracized, and even sometimes, attacked violently.

And you have no problem with that scenario? I suppose in your mind the "violent attacker" should not be charged with assault since he was "stopping reaction"?

So tell me, if beating up "capitalists" is acceptable, what else is? Killing them? How about raping them?

If some capitalist "****" refuses to stop peacably protesting, should we "teach her a lesson"? You know,"slap her around" a bit, maybe "fuck the capitalist outa her"? I mean, she's just a "capitalist", so it's not like she has any rights...

I think you need to think long and hard about what kind of society you are endeavouring to create. Because a system in which people's social rights are dependent on them toeing the ideological line is anything but free ...and is hardly what I'd call communist!


If victims of persecution are allowed to be continually persecuted by the persecutors then something is wrong with society.

Unless you can come up with some objective demonstrable harm that doing otherwise would produce, we have an obligation to grant full democratic enfranchisement to every member of society.

Revolution is not about "class spite". We fight the bourgeoisie because we have to, not because we enjoy it. "Hurting" the former capitalists would be a complete waste of time and worse than useless public policy.

We're not overthrowing the bourgoeisie to replace them with a worse oppression! The revolutionary aftermath is a very delicate situation and a little too much overeagerness in "suppression" can derail the entire endeavour.

We don't want another Lenin ...or another Mao. Tha means no "iron discipline", no "ruling party", and no government suppression!

Now, that might mean having to debate capitalists a lot longer than we might like to, but so long as we're on the wining side of history, who gives a damn? Revolution isn't about making revolutionaries happy, it's about emancipating the proletariat.

And censorship is fundamentally incompatible with an emancipated society.


Why should racists be allowed to air their views - they are inherently wrong and have a dangerous effect on society

You're asking a philosophical question when you should be asking a political one.

The issue isn't "why should" racists be allowed to speak, it's how would one go about stopping them.

No one is denying that racists are wrong, but the problem with censorship is that by definition it requires a censor; that is, someone empowered to declare what is and what is not "acceptable" speech.

As DR rightly points out, absent a centralized monopoly on force censorship is impossible. Marmot's proposal that "bigots" could just be "dealt with" on an ad hoc level is simply absurd.

Which effectively leaves you with one of three choices;1) you decriminalize assault so long as the victim's politics are unpopular enough, i.e, political chaos, or
2) you set up some kind of screening body empowered to review any form of speech, i.e., a bureaucratic clique, or
3) you allow people to express their opinions, even unpopular ones, without fear of civil retribution. Those are your only choices because there is ultimately no such thing as "democratic censorship".

So I guess you need to decide which is more important to you, maintaining legitimate social freedom, or harassing "bigots". Because the two are not mutually compatible.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:30 pm
In a post-revolutionary society, I don't think racism will be tolerated. Even outside legal means, racists are going to be ostracized, and even sometimes, attacked violently.
In a post-revolutionary society, I don't even think racism will even exist because the chief causes of it will cease to exist and institutionalized racism will have been swept away with capitalism. That said, certain individuals might still hold on to racist attitudes, although I too do not think that it will be socially acceptable to exhibit racist attitudes.

Once the revolution is victorious, our revolutionary ideas will be mainstream and the bourgeoisie ideas will be on the political fringe just like we are today, although their chances of taking power will be almost non-existent. It would be like someone today arguing for a return to feudalism and primitivism, so I do not think that decriminalizing assault on reactionaries will be necessary at all

[luxemburg89]

No one is denying that racists are wrong, but the problem with censorship is that by definition it requires a censor; that is, someone empowered to declare what is and what is not "acceptable" speech.


Yeah, I see your point. Perhaps education (and that is education rather than indoctrination - hopefully lol) has a great part to play. For example teaching students the ills of racism from a very young age in primary schools and raise the issues, certainly sooner than they are being raised in schools at the moment.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:10 pm
3) you allow people to express their opinions, even unpopular ones, without fear of civil retribution.
I take it this is the liberal position you are assuming on this matter.
All countries who have adopted such policies to some extent have consequently rendered a portion of its citizens marginalized and oppressed by bigotry.

What you pejoratively call "censorship" can more precisely and neutrally be described as the enforcement and protection of democracy from oppressors, much like a working-class revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 06, 2007 08:42 pm
A democratic society protects its members from bigotry, among other things.
A democratic socity allows political movement toward the protection of it's members from bigotry but does not automaticly offer such protections. Socities can choose to withdraw rights.
What is offered by democraticy is a forum for debate, in which agreements can be reached. And it is in those agreements that our rights are born. Rights are not the gift of a deity but are conceived in the human mind and are born in the political arena. Rights are seized by struggle. The most firmly won rights are those, which the arguments for, have become the accepted beliefs of the great majority of people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If a society is democratic, then its members protect themselves and their interests by combating the oppressive forces of bigotry, since bigotry is an explicit affront to equality and thus to democracy. Therefore it can be affirmed that a democratic society defends its members from bigotry. A society that doe not protect itself from bigotry is a society that for either of two reasons doesn't concern itself with bigotry. Either that society is free of bigotry, meaning that there would be no bigotry to confront and the subject is rendered moot. Or that society is not democratic and the rulers don't really care about those who suffer from bigotry. The latter seems to be what you're condoning and what takes place in most Western liberal "democracies".

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:30 pm
In a post-revolutionary society, I don't think racism will be tolerated. Even outside legal means, racists are going to be ostracized, and even sometimes, attacked violently.
I was just curious as to what sort of legal means will be available in your post-revolutionary society?