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:many faults with the argument
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:56AM
Tell it to the fascists. Dialog is good until somebody outlaws your healthcare and attempts to suspend the Constitution to create a presidential dictatorship. In the end, we are forced to choose: socialism or barbarism.
Who would these fascists be? Nobody's healthcare got outlawed. Nor did anyone attempt to suspend the Constitution to create a presidential dictatorship. As to the choice between socialism and barbarism? They're orthogonal. Barbarians often had a lot of socialist aspects to their societies - like sharing resources, group projects, and maintaining commons. But that didn't work out so well for their victims.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:56AM
Who would these fascists be? Nobody's healthcare got outlawed. Nor did anyone attempt to suspend the Constitution to create a presidential dictatorship. As to the choice between socialism and barbarism? They're orthogonal. Barbarians often had a lot of socialist aspects to their societies - like sharing resources, group projects, and maintaining commons. But that didn't work out so well for their victims.