This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
Reply to: Re:well well well
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:34AM
I think we can all agree on the fact that if you interfere with my freedom, I should be able to interfere with yours.
No, we don't so agree. There are two problems with that. First, if you're a nutcase, then you may have deluded yourself into something that isn't true - such as the "stop the steal" people or the Jewish space lasers woman. Second, there's a tendency to escalate when reverse violation is the first resort especially among the previously mentioned crazy class. Your dog pooped on my lawn, now I'm trashing your mailbox, now you're slashing my car tires, and now I'm shooting your windows out.
My experience is that rational people normally deal with said interference through more peaceable means first. Sure, if someone is robbing your house while you're sleeping, you shouldn't be expected to talk it out. But most rights interference is mundane and easy to resolve. If a neighborhood kid is playing their music too loud, talk to the parents first. Maybe they don't know that's happening (say the kid does it when the parents are away) and it can be easily fixed without attacking anyone's rights.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:34AM
No, we don't so agree. There are two problems with that. First, if you're a nutcase, then you may have deluded yourself into something that isn't true - such as the "stop the steal" people or the Jewish space lasers woman. Second, there's a tendency to escalate when reverse violation is the first resort especially among the previously mentioned crazy class. Your dog pooped on my lawn, now I'm trashing your mailbox, now you're slashing my car tires, and now I'm shooting your windows out.
My experience is that rational people normally deal with said interference through more peaceable means first. Sure, if someone is robbing your house while you're sleeping, you shouldn't be expected to talk it out. But most rights interference is mundane and easy to resolve. If a neighborhood kid is playing their music too loud, talk to the parents first. Maybe they don't know that's happening (say the kid does it when the parents are away) and it can be easily fixed without attacking anyone's rights.