Respect or tolerate

[oggbashan]

Cambridge University is discussing free speech rules.

They are suggesting that people whose views you dislike should be 'respected'.

Others are arguing that 'respect' is too far. 'tolerate' would be better.

I am with the 'tolerate' faction.

I do not and cannot respect those who strongly advocate holocaust denial or those who hold a virulent anti-vaxxer stance.

I am prepared to listen to their arguments and put an opposing view, but respect their views? No. Never.

Are you for respect an opponent's views, or tolerate them?

 

[JackLuis]

Fuck 'em if they can't take reality!

 

[oggbashan]

Fuck 'em if they can't take reality!

But they have a right to express those views - and be laughed at. How disrespectful!

 

[Dribble]

There is NO PLACE in this World for Fascism. Respect? Never. Tolerate? Never. If I gave either, it makes me no better than the traitors themselves. As soon as an individual openly supports Fascism...they are 100% out of my life. Let Cambridge be a lesser University...that is on them

 

[oggbashan]

There is NO PLACE in this World for Fascism. Respect? Never. Tolerate? Never. If I gave either, it makes me no better than the traitors themselves. As soon as an individual openly supports Fascism...they are 100% out of my life. Let Cambridge be a lesser University...that is on them

Cambridge, and all universities, should be for freedom of speech no matter how unpleasant the views that are expressed. The students should be able to think for themselves and reject the assholes.

 

[Sean]

Cambridge, and all universities, should be for freedom of speech no matter how unpleasant the views that are expressed. The students should be able to think for themselves and reject the assholes.

That's fine, but they're under no obligation to give the fuckers a platform.

 

[Tim2run]

You should not base your viewpoint based upon the most egregious outliers of speech and opinion.

There are established methods of dealing with speech that incites harmful action.
There is also the truism that if you shut them up and shut them out
then they will keep to themselves and fester in the dark
when it is the light that disinfects...​

All too often we see people here cherry-pick a post from a most extreme viewpoint
and then use that exception to prove the rule which justifies 'intolerance'
for the free speech of others warranting personal attack.

Therefore, the default option is respect which I think implies listening with an open mind
where tolerance is just letting them rant on while you ignore them.

 

[oggbashan]

That's fine, but they're under no obligation to give the fuckers a platform.

No-platforming is a denial of free speech.

Hearing them and laughing at them is more effective.

 

[Dribble]

Is Cambridge a public funded university? Then Fascism should never be given a platform. This is not a free speech issue.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Therefore, the default option is respect which I think implies listening with an open mind
where tolerance is just letting them rant on while you ignore them.

Respecting their right to express their view is one thing. Respecting their hateful views is something else.

I would tolerate their right to say what they want but reserve the right to respond with NO respect whatever.

 

[Sean]

No-platforming is a denial of free speech.

No, it isn't. That's like saying Jews should be forced to let the likes of David Irving speak at their synagogues.

 

[Tim2run]

Respecting their right to express their view is one thing. Respecting their hateful views is something else.

I would tolerate their right to say what they want but reserve the right to respond with NO respect whatever.

In other words, you disregarded premise one to attack the conclusion.

Here's the one overriding problem that I always have with this issue;
Who gets to decide? Who gets to define? Who gets to censor
on my behalf and tell me what I can, or cannot hear?

In short,

A lot of people here are acting as if Cambridge, or any other institution,
group or captive, is holding its audience captive and forcing them
to listen when the proper response is the one we gave
Tipper Gore - CHANGE THE DAMNED STATION!!!

 

[Tim2run]

No, it isn't. That's like saying Jews should be forced to let the likes of David Irving speak at their synagogues.

A Synagogue is not a public forum.
A college, by definition, is. Even if it is a private college.
They can not invite speakers, but they should not be about
confining the thoughts of their students and faculty to suit the
prevailing winds of popular mob opinion.

 

[nerfvibrator]

respect, never
tolerate possibly; I won't tolerate murderers and the likes; their opinions and justifications don't deserve the light of day

 

[Dribble]

Can people say something on this website, and be banned? What's the difference? Giving Fascists an equal platform to tout their views elevates their words to the ignorant masses. It gives them power.

Society must take a stand...else the next thing you know you have a Fascist traitor as president, giving voice to his Fascist traitor followers. They don't play by civilized rules.

 

[oggbashan]

No one is forcing people to attend talks.

Just the opposite. No-platforming is denying people the opportunity to hear what the views are and to decide for themselves.

On Literotica, for years I have seen and challenged BBs statements. I have no respect for his views at all but I have tolerated his right to express them.

Temporarily even my tolerance has found its limits and for a few weeks, I have put him on ignore. That doesn't mean I want to stop him posting. I've just got tired, temporarily of his ranting. I'll probably take him off ignore soon.

 

[Tim2run]

I can think of a couple of murderers/criminals who were elevated and championed by the Left.
Hell, take Bill Ayers, for perhaps the prime example.

 

[Tim2run]

Can people say something on this website, and be banned? What's the difference? Giving Fascists an equal platform to tout their views elevates their words to the ignorant masses. It gives them power.

Society must take a stand...else the next thing you know you have a Fascist traitor as president, giving voice to his Fascist traitor followers. They don't play by civilized rules.

This is a privately-owned and operated website which is open about its moderating.
It is not a public square or an institute of education.
It is entertainment, maybe not good...

 

[oggbashan]

I can think of a couple of murderers/criminals who were elevated and championed by the Left.
Hell, take Bill Ayers, for perhaps the prime example.

That is an example of false 'respect'.

Their views should be challenged.

 

[Tim2run]

No, it's real respect. Ask President Obama...

 

[Tim2run]

On another note, take Saul David Alinsky, the very opposite of everything I hold dear.
I respect him and I read him because he tells me how his side thinks.
If I just tolerated him, I wouldn't have purchased his book.
I wouldn't have studied him. As a culture, we failed
to respect Hitler, we tolerated him.
Look where that led.

Because of respect for Alinsky, I respected the Reverend Wright*
and I respected their protege because it was the best way
to try and protect myself, my way of life.
Tolerating them would be to
face their ideas unarmed.



* and sadly, to an extent, Bill Ayers who was willing to act out that unhealthy orthodoxy.
The people who merely tolerated him sat quietly by while he got off on technicality.

 

[Tim2run]

*chuckle*

It just occurred to me (thinking about Obama)
I merely tolerate Joe Biden...

 

[oggbashan]

All of which proves that we have different interpretations of the two words 'respect' and 'tolerate'.

In recent US politics, both words appear to be missing.

Respect for an honourable opponent? What happened to that?

 

[LLCox]

They can all rave on... I'll just point and laugh.

 

[oggbashan]

They can all rave on... I'll just point and laugh.

Good for you.

That's toleration, not respect.