Hacker News Reader

Comment by vaishaksuresh | Hacker News Reader

>The problem is: where will the line be drawn?

Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance. If BLM, PETA, Antifa want people of other race/class/sexual orientation harmed in any kind of way, sure go ahead and ban them. If on the other hand they want fair treatment, equality or reprieve from targeted brutality, listen to them and see how we as a society can address their concern. If they resort to violence, arrest them and treat them like you would treat a criminal.

It is not really that hard. Right to free speech does not really mean right to say anything anywhere without any consequence.

The irony in this whole thing is, the more tolerant you are to an inherently intolerant ideology like white-spremacy, the less tolerant we become as a society.

View on HN

> Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance.

That doesn't work. There are lots of people who are extremely intolerant to people who hold views that weren't very controversial a decade or two ago and are still widely held today; case in point, Brendan Eich (and the intolerant campaign that got him fired). "Unacceptable intolerance" is something that can have very different definitions from one person to the next, so it's not a useful test.

> It is not really that hard.

Drawing the line about what the limits of free expression are in an open society is a very hard problem. Saying it isn't is flippant and frankly wrong.

> The irony in this whole thing is, the more tolerant you are to an inherently intolerant ideology like white-supremacy, the less tolerant we become as a society.

That isn't true either, it can also show societal confidence that ideas like white-supremacy are wrong and that the light of scrutiny will make them look foolish.

I don't want to argue about this on HN, because I don't think this is the right forum. You can argue all you want about how X was discriminated for having Y opinion and how it was not alright. I may agree with you on some instances, however, under no circumstance is is alright to:

1) Own another person 2) Discriminate based on something that people have no control over. Like race, sexual orientation, Gender etc. 3) Exploit somebody's helplessness for your profit.

No matter what age you grew up in, modern society has no place for such ideas. There may be other things that are debatable or in the gray area, but Nazi ideology isn't one of them.

If you don't want to talk about anything that's fine. However, this discussion is about speech about those ideas, not their actual implementation. You don't really seem to be distinguishing between the two.

> Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance.

Not that simple! "Intolerance: unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own".

Does unwillingness to accept Nazi ideology make you intolerant?

>Does unwillingness to accept Nazi ideology make you intolerant?

Yes, Intolerant to intolerance.

Yes, it does.

Why are your morals the ones that deserve free speech?

Because wanting to own other humans, killing people because of their race, gender or sexual orientation are not morals.

moral: adjective - Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

noun - a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Actually, those are morals.

There are cultures and religions around the world that live life differently from you. They believe there should be strong gender norms, have strict codes of conduct for how to live their lives, and expect and enforce those standards on everyone in the community. Do you think they should be silenced?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com