For reference, the above idea comes from Karl Popper in the 1940s. Also relevant is Stanley Fish on multiculturalism: https://handleshaus.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/boutique-multiculturalism.pdf (the link is not to a direct version as it appeared in a journal, but it's still the complete text).
which side does that quote apply to exactly? the argument is premised on the assumption that 'followers' do what their 'leaders' tell them to do and think what they tell them to think. the above quote 'works' for both sides. its a fallacy. if youre attacked, then hell yes defend yourself. but if you think so little of the general population that you cant sway public opinion with a superior argument then perhaps your argument isn't superior after all. either way, I have no affinity for an ideology that thinks it must 'lead the masses' by suppressing voices it disagrees with.
I think there might be a difference between things I "disagree with" and things that are "Ethically, morally and objectively wrong"
The way I see it, protests are fine and legal, regardless of what message they promote. On the other hand, riots are illegal and absolutely should be. In my opinion the unite the right protest came dangerously close to being a riot, because protesters were shouting hateful chants and many were armed. There wasn't any destruction of property, but it was still a lot of very angry people. Probably 80% riot level. The counter protest was more like 30% riot level, because many had sticks and batons, and most were probably there to punch a ****. So basically both sides were doing something wrong - they were angry and ready to fight each other. Then one guy went crazy and drove into a crowd. So I think the key here is to organize and regulate protests so they don't turn into riots.
Counter protests are counter productive, if you wanna make an argument then have your own march the next day, and don't come armed to the teeth at every chance you can wearing masks. It makes it very obvious to me who the trouble makers are, when you wear a mask to protect your identity. It just gets old having the same talks on these forums yet we're no closer to swaying either side than we were months or years ago. Too many biased opinions and not enough open mindedness.
if a protest is a demonstration of the support something has and a counter protest is a demonstration of how much people oppose it then how is it counterproductive? In Europe that would be the neonazis. which are wrongly labelled "left luggage" here. how come neonazis and their ilk don't have to hide their identity in your country? that would be a better question. I understand why the left might hide their face the way you people talk about them.
what a pile of crap. we cant tolerate the speech of people we disagree with cuz.... hitler. how bout you educate your youth to be critical thinkers instead of just indoctrinating them into your way of thinking. but I can see why you like it. its up to the state to protect you from them instead of taking responsibility for yourselves.
I think that's going further than tolerating their speech. I do believe that any group should be able to protest, regardless of content. The tolerance for the protest should end when it gets violent, also regardless of content.
the irony of every sentence ragic spouts is astounding talks about critical thinking while advocating absolute freedom because it's too hard for him to distinguish between **** and not ****
content is important. should we tolerate a cult that says every first born must be sacrificed to cthulhu?
This is exactly the subject you wanted to discuss, and yet when people finally start talking about it then you get all defensive.
for the reasons ive already stated several times in this thread. now unless an idea is somehow criminal like child pornography or terrorist propaganda, then a group has a right to express it. is being a racist criminalized in Europe? it might very well be for all I know, but in the US, groups like the KKK aren't illegal. maybe they should be. that's a different debate. but as long as they are not, and they are not breaking the law, they have the right to speak. others have a right to speak out against them. but I don't think a face to face mob vs mob confrontation is the way to do it.
Why draw the line there though? Do you let legality define your moral values? What if a bunch of pedophiles got together and started a protest about how their right to sexual expression was being infringed upon by the law? I mean, we already make allowances for people like these: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-marries-train-station-shes-10499237 If these people aren't mentally ill, why are pedophiles?
they are classified as a terrorist group in South Carolina, outside of there I guess not? yet this is inevitable if the KKK shows up, so should any protests they are likely to march in be banned to maintain the peace?
People who think we are the biggest liberals they'll ever meet have no idea what the spectrum is actually like. Aside from Sok, most of us are clearly centrist
