150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Liriena]

Why does it matter whether they're all journalists? Journalists are people too, Ostro.

I do understand your own reasons to not take the letter seriously. Your invocation of gamergate made it quite clear. But if there is one thing I absolutely agree with that second open letter of is this: the first open letter's choice in examples, and how it framed them, was just plain bad. A point which was already kind of self-evident in how I don't recall (though I might be wrong) any poster here citing those examples by name as arguments against "cancel culture".

It's not exactly a good look if you can't find someone who isn't a journalist to sign a letter saying that there isn't a problem with the way journalism is conducted.

Except the letter does acknowledge that problems exist. It just disagrees with the first letter's framing of them.

Meanwhile, the letter calling them out has a range of academics, novelists, activists, and politicians from various professions and across the political spectrum. It kind of suggests something about the overall dynamic and how worthwhile the response is.

What does it suggest and how is it relevant to the actual content of the letter, though?

[Galloism]

Can you cite a source for this discrepancy?

Because I’ve been seeing right and left alternately do this for as long as I’ve been alive.

As I mentioned: "cultural Marxism" has been a constant manifestation of this for decades. A political movement which doesn't actually exist, made up by people who don't understand Marxism, used to point the finger at anyone and anything even vaguely non-conforming of the cultural status quo.

Ok, but to do a comparison thing, you have to compare.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not exactly a good look if you can't find someone who isn't a journalist to sign a letter saying that there isn't a problem with the way journalism is conducted.

Except the letter does acknowledge that problems exist. It just disagrees with the first letter's framing of them.

Meanwhile, the letter calling them out has a range of academics, novelists, activists, and politicians from various professions and across the political spectrum. It kind of suggests something about the overall dynamic and how worthwhile the response is.

What does it suggest and how is it relevant to the actual content of the letter, though?

Something along these lines:

"Here is a letter from ten thousand police officers saying there is no racism problem in the police and a detailed list of excuses for each of the incidents you take issue with. We couldn't find anyone else to agree with us, but i'm sure that's not a problem. Our letter is just as valid as the one signed by everybody else.".

Dunno mate. Not quite the same imo. Smacks of lack of self-awareness.

yes, we're aware journalists think these incidents are justified. Nobody else agrees. That's the point we're making, we think their perspective is warped and that's why they think these excuses are valid, and we'd like them to stop.

Just imagine cops having the same level of arrogance to genuinely put a list out there of the incidents and excuse them sequentially and not realize how terrible the optics would be and how they are in essence fessing up to what they're being accused of in the first place, being so caught up in a particular way of viewing things that they think this shit is excusable.

Saying "Alright, the George Flloyd one is legit. But any time we *can* wriggle out of it, we will" doesn't exactly make it "Admitting there are some problems" so much as "having no choice if they want even the thin veneer of good faith".

The progressive press keeps causing these backlashes. You know what they say if every ex you have is crazy, right?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The OP letter doesn't mention "cancel culture" and the only person's name mentioned in it is Donald Trump.

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

[Liriena]

Your gamergate derangement syndrome is duly noted.

Just noting the similarities in how this particular faction keeps behaving and their self-referential claims to be authorities as though it ends debate. (And coincidentally, by using their authority and privilege to end debate and derail criticism of their infiltration and gatekeeping of institutions, perpetuating that gatekeeping and keeping their authority intact in a cycle of nonsense.).

???

k?

I feel like your analysis is kind of at odds with the actual content of the letter and this is more your bias against journalists speaking, but k.

Also, do you ever get tired of abusing the word "infiltration"? These people aren't "infiltrators". They're workers. They're not the KGB or members of some clandestine organization. I'm getting a bit tired of you using deceitful, manipulative wording to imply all manner of crap without actually getting caught in a lie.

[Proctopeo]

The letter you linked is almost 100% journalists signing it. They couldn't find anyone else to agree with them. Or perhaps even more eye roll worthy, didn't think to try and ask because obviously having journalists say it would be good enough.

He might have been making a dig about how you likewise wouldn't see the problem with that for reasons. I on the other hand am inclined to believe (Not uncharitably because I've done similar shit) that you didn't actually read the signatures and notice the pattern.

I hope you see why I'm not inclined to take such a letter seriously for the reasons I laid out in the post and Hmm'd about.

Why does it matter whether they're all journalists? Journalists are people too, Ostro.

It demonstrates a stunning lack of diversity (the same thing they claimed was a problem with the original letter). It also demonstrates either a lack of ability to get anyone but journalists on board, or a lack of effort to get people of different occupations on board.

I do understand your own reasons to not take the letter seriously. Your invocation of gamergate made it quite clear.

???

Kotaku is a reliable source - Kotaku.

Your gamergate derangement syndrome is duly noted.

You're not using that right. If anyone has "gamergate derangement syndrome", it's the journalists who keep bringing it up as a scapegoat for all of society's ills.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, do you ever get tired of abusing the word "infiltration"? These people aren't "infiltrators". They're workers. They're not the KGB or members of some clandestine organization. I'm getting a bit tired of you using deceitful, manipulative wording to imply all manner of crap without actually getting caught in a lie.

The media is a societal institution. I'd consider it infiltration if you decide to use it to platform a fringe ideology that is well outside the public norm and gatekeep that institution against dissent from that ideology. Like if Ancaps got prominent there and started gatekeeping it.

And yes, for the record, Murdochs mainstreaming of radical corporate ideology is something i'd consider an infiltration of media as an institution too.

[Liriena]

As I mentioned: "cultural Marxism" has been a constant manifestation of this for decades. A political movement which doesn't actually exist, made up by people who don't understand Marxism, used to point the finger at anyone and anything even vaguely non-conforming of the cultural status quo.

Ok, but to do a comparison thing, you have to compare.

Well, that's the thing... there really isn't much of a comparison. For all the conservatives whining since 2015 that the left has "overused" words like "fascism" and "nazism", as far as I can recall those words have seldom been used by the left in the same terms as the right uses "cultural Marxism". Some might point to a Youtuber being kinda maybe racist and say "he's a nazi!", but they'll rarely take the step further that the right takes and say that nazis are in control of most cultural, academic and political insitutions, have been in control for decades, and have used that control to "indoctrinate" the children and change the culture.

"White privilege" and "patriarchy" don't really get the same treatment either, most of the time. Rarely will someone talk about either terms in the sense of there being some all-encompassing, decades-long conspiracy that has "infiltrated" or "taken over" institutions. When people say "white privilege" or "patriarchy", they usually don't mean it in terms of there being some nebulous, omnipresent conspiracy of academics and media executives who're actively conspiring to destroy all non-white women.

The only instances where I'd say left-wing movements have done the same would be under Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist regimes, which makes sense given their authoritarianism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ok, but to do a comparison thing, you have to compare.

Well, that's the thing... there really isn't much of a comparison. For all the conservatives whining since 2015 that the left has "overused" words like "fascism" and "nazism", as far as I can recall those words have seldom been used by the left in the same terms as the right uses "cultural Marxism". Some might point to a Youtuber being kinda maybe racist and say "he's a nazi!", but they'll rarely take the step further that the right takes and say that nazis are in control of most cultural, academic and political insitutions, have been in control for decades, and have used that control to "indoctrinate" the children and change the culture.

"White privilege" and "patriarchy" don't really get the same treatment either, most of the time. Rarely will someone talk about either terms in the sense of there being some all-encompassing, decades-long conspiracy that has "infiltrated" or "taken over" institutions. When people say "white privilege" or "patriarchy", they usually don't mean it in terms of there being some nebulous, omnipresent conspiracy of academics and media executives who're actively conspiring to destroy all non-white women.

The only instances where I'd say left-wing movements have done the same would be under Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist regimes, which makes sense given their authoritarianism.

So the difference is that the left doesn't allege intent, basically. I'd question that.

While it's true that alleging intent is more common on the right, it is also present on the left to a lesser degree, and likewise, on the right there are some who allege ideological bias and blindness, just a lesser degree.

Otherwise yes, you've got it. The whole "Patriarchy" and "White privilege" shit is a pretty good comparison to the right wing conspiratorializing.

[James_xenoland]

Imagine a world without reactionaries... (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

Oh the crab rave I'll have when the last few reactionaries crawl back to the shadows, never to be heard again by society.

Wait, I thought you two were in support of cancel culture? Never missing a chance to defend it. hmmmm

That all sounds a lot like the rest of societies views on cancel culture and prog extremists in general.

[The Lone Alliance]

It'll never happen under this system because the perpetual need to internet war will require creating new reactionaries to replace the old.

That's part of the problem, the system requires reactionaries existence to perpetuate itself, and if the demand cannot meet the supply then people will simply feed some of their own to it to continue the system.

Without reactionaries to cancel they won't be able to be an activist anymore... and would be expected to actually get off their butt and fix the actual problems marginalized people suffer... or admit that it was never about helping marginalized people.

So instead they'll find new reactionaries to cancel to justify their need to cancel people.

It's like the war on Drugs or the War on Terror, it's not designed to be a war that's winnable but a war to justify the need for warfighters.

Only difference is people have yet to find a way to really profit off of cancel culture... yet at least.

See, all of these assumptions kind of only work if you don't ask one key question: how do you know that the vague, nebulous group of people you're referring to all act on insincere motivations? Are you psychoanalyzing all left-wing online activism? Are you basing your analysis on the historical record? Because the historical record points in the opposite direction: the existential need for an enemy to justify the existence of one's own movement, to the point of making that enemy up or cannibalizing people on your own side to do it, is usually a right-wing phenomenon. The "cultural Marxism" boogeyman, and reactionary redbaiting in general, is the evergreen encapsulation of this.

That's my point, many of people I speak of aren't actually leftists, they're more or less mentality wise Neocons in personal identity while others are merely opportunists, 30 years ago these people would have been part of the Right Wing "Moral Majority" burning everything satanic and trying to cancel everything that they saw was immoral.

They're just authoritarians looking for a means to project power over others.

I really think a large number of the people enforcing cancel culture are actually hostile to leftism in general, and I mean actual leftism, there are legit good faith people who are pushing for leftist causes and leftist gains but mixed into it there are bad faith actors who are less caring about the cause and more caring about the power, and culturally they are likely more or less simply playing lipservice to leftist goals in the pursuit of power while on the inside they're still holding their same reactionary ideas.

Think about all those "Male Feminists" who turn out to be molesters and harassers. Same issue.

And if you want to bring up history many authoritarian leftist regimes have used an eternal enemy both real and fake as a means to justify their actions.

That leads to my earlier point, and that's weeding out all these bad faith actors trying to use cancel culture to hurt others while not hurting the good faith actors actually fighting for marginalized people is the hardest thing to do.

[Uiiop]

As for the other point: The letter's writer and most prominent signers' hypocrisy and blind spots is one of the points but can be a valid thing to point when a new group comes along. They aren't using it as an deflection. They go through each one and explain why they interpret things the way they do. They may point out how other people have more of the same problem but they don't use that as evidence in itself that what the original writers cite as problems aren't. One of the guesses that wasn't supported by NYT they even concede that is was an legit problem. So while sure they are biased they're not afraid to accept what an individual incident might not fit.

Ok, I’ll let it go on the examples. I’m not familiar enough with the given ones to rebut or accept them, and it is tax season again.

Still, I don’t care for the prejudice plus power bullshit, or the complaint they didn’t flagellate themselves in the opening paragraph first by acknowledging other issues.

Besides isn't this what other posters accuse you of when you bring up feminist hypocrisy?

They accuse me of cherry-picking when I show repeated actions and attempts yes, but I have a more broad pattern than a few with institutional results that persist.

That being said, I’ll accept your point on the examples.

Well the original letter sets themselves up for it by going " The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides." and "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture"

It sections off with what they're concerned about from the "Radical right" but it like ain't the other issues don't come from OANN and Fox news.

It's frames itself as calling out a wide net and broadly encompassing multiple issues. Pointing out what they missed seems to be a fair play.

Also you seem to have missed the part where they lied about where the focus when advertising to one of the singers.

[Kowani]

Yes, unironically. Shame reactionaries whenever possible.
This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, seriously.

the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

According to Popper, the sort of view you claim to defend would seem to leave room for "reactionaries" to give rational arguments for their views in the public sphere, so long as they don't resort to or encourage violence.

Are you willing to listen to "reactionary" arguments? Or will you deny us even that?

“ as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion”

Because of the environment in which we find ourselves, the continuous failures of neoliberalism/neoconservatism, we cannot guarantee that reactionary ideas will be kept in check.
Rather, they find in the current state a welcome home, and so they must be denied the right to spread their ideas.

[Kowani]

Its good that at least one other person has read more than a single clipped footnote by Popper. Gives me hope that there are plenty of people on NSG not as intellectually lazy as Kowani.

Ah, yes, the NSG Classic. A drive by potshot with inaccurate information and needless hostility.

[Liriena]

Actually, I think I'm going to bypass responses entirely because I'm not satisfied with my own arguments and I don't think they're a hill worth dying on.

A lot of y'all's criticisms of "cancel culture" are legitimate. I have expressed my own criticisms, as have many left-wingers. If there is a better alternative to deal with people whose actions and speech are harmful to the dignity and safety of others, I welcome it.

That's my main concern, though: the "yes... and?" of this topic.

"Cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and? What's next? What is, specifically, no longer ok once we accept that basic premise? What do we want instead? What sort of climate are we trying to create after that? What sort of climate are we going to create?

Ostro invoked Gamergate. He has already talked at length over the years on why he supported it and why he thought it was a good thing. But one thing that I feel never crosses his mind is that the subculture born from Gamergate actually made the internet, and specially the gaming corner of the internet, feel very hostile to LGBT people, including myself. Some Gamergate supporters will claim to be progressive, liberal and welcoming, and that these feelings aren't based on anything real or, that if they are, Gamergate had nothing to do with it... but it did. And the same goes for this backlash against "cancel culture". We see it clear as day in how OP framed the issue, and how Trump framed the issue as well: a lot of people see in the backlash against "cancel culture" an opportunity to intensify the ongoing "culture war" on everyone to the left of Jeb!, a war which the left didn't start but gets constantly blamed for. And if anyone thinks that reactionaries, conservatives and liberals won't go beyond just trying to talk "cancel culture" out of existence, they need to remember that the right has never wasted an opportunity to turn a moral panic or outrage into an excuse for far-reaching policy which obliterates the human rights of millions of innocents.

So, again: "cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and?

[Liriena]

Oh the crab rave I'll have when the last few reactionaries crawl back to the shadows, never to be heard again by society.

Wait, I thought you two were in support of cancel culture? Never missing a chance to defend it. hmmmm

That all sounds a lot like the rest of societies views on cancel culture and prog extremists in general.

???

I support any ethical way of undermining reactionaries' attempts to accomplish their political goals. If "cancel culture" ain't it, then we'll have to find a better way, but the goal should always remain the same.

[Liriena]

Its good that at least one other person has read more than a single clipped footnote by Popper. Gives me hope that there are plenty of people on NSG not as intellectually lazy as Kowani.

Ah, yes, the NSG Classic. A drive by potshot with inaccurate information and needless hostility.

I kind of appreciate Hirota's duality: sometimes he's a damn good poster who makes good arguments; sometimes he's a petty, needlessly hurtful poster whose insulting comments straddle the fine line between smug banter and outright flaming.

[Kowani]

Oh the crab rave I'll have when the last few reactionaries crawl back to the shadows, never to be heard again by society.

Wait, I thought you two were in support of cancel culture? Never missing a chance to defend it. hmmmm

That all sounds a lot like the rest of societies views on cancel culture and prog extremists in general.

Cancel culture, and especially deplatforming are effective vehicles to preventing the dissemination of reactionary viewpoints. If something better comes up, then we go for that.

[Diarcesia]

I can predict the reaction: "why are you keeping on inserting white problems to a black problem!?". Again, they're focused more on blacks because they're historically discriminated for centuries and obviously something the whites don't have to experience.

For my part, not everyone can focus on all issues at once. If there's a group that wants to focus on men's rights, they're free to do so, provided that no other groups are minimized in the process. And no, the advocacy merely existing is not by definition minimizing other groups like feminism.

...though I would take issue on the grievance ideology you've hinted at in regards to "Historical oppression" and how that's for some reason supposed to dictate current dynamics and policy...

It does dictate a lot of the demands that were put forward like affirmative action or defunding the police. They believe that this will raise the opportunities for the minorities to be equal to that of the whites.

[Galloism]

Actually, I think I'm going to bypass responses entirely because I'm not satisfied with my own arguments and I don't think they're a hill worth dying on.

A lot of y'all's criticisms of "cancel culture" are legitimate. I have expressed my own criticisms, as have many left-wingers. If there is a better alternative to deal with people whose actions and speech are harmful to the dignity and safety of others, I welcome it.

That's my main concern, though: the "yes... and?" of this topic.

"Cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and? What's next? What is, specifically, no longer ok once we accept that basic premise? What do we want instead? What sort of climate are we trying to create after that? What sort of climate are we going to create?

Ostro invoked Gamergate. He has already talked at length over the years on why he supported it and why he thought it was a good thing. But one thing that I feel never crosses his mind is that the subculture born from Gamergate actually made the internet, and specially the gaming corner of the internet, feel very hostile to LGBT people, including myself. Some Gamergate supporters will claim to be progressive, liberal and welcoming, and that these feelings aren't based on anything real or, that if they are, Gamergate had nothing to do with it... but it did. And the same goes for this backlash against "cancel culture". We see it clear as day in how OP framed the issue, and how Trump framed the issue as well: a lot of people see in the backlash against "cancel culture" an opportunity to intensify the ongoing "culture war" on everyone to the left of Jeb!, a war which the left didn't start but gets constantly blamed for. And if anyone thinks that reactionaries, conservatives and liberals won't go beyond just trying to talk "cancel culture" out of existence, they need to remember that the right has never wasted an opportunity to turn a moral panic or outrage into an excuse for far-reaching policy which obliterates the human rights of millions of innocents.

So, again: "cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and?

And it's time to limit the damage. And I think we can approach it in terms of employment and workers rights.

Much like The Civil Rights Act gave businesses a shield against the mob and a stick to threaten them when it came to hiring/not firing black people, it's time to give them the same when it comes to those targeted by the mob.

It'll still suck. But if you're enduring a torrent of abuse and still have your job, you can effectively ride it out. In the current climate, they go after everything - not only harassing you and threatening you with death, but taking away your livelihood with the goal of making you destitute.

This really needs to be thought of in terms of workers rights. With workers rights, you can ride out the hatred and abuse from the mob. Without, it can effectively be a life ending experience.

[Diarcesia]

So, again: "cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and?

Cancel culture sucks? Yes... and don't go out actively ruining the lives of people who run their mouths and outed themselves as bigots, today or years ago.

Calling them out by saying, "no... what you said isn't acceptable because no one deserves to be discriminated," should be enough.

[Proctopeo]

Wait, I thought you two were in support of cancel culture? Never missing a chance to defend it. hmmmm

That all sounds a lot like the rest of societies views on cancel culture and prog extremists in general.

Cancel culture, and especially deplatforming are effective vehicles to preventing the dissemination of reactionary viewpoints. If something better comes up, then we go for that.

With a goal as unending and ill-defined as that, you'll be hard-pressed to find tactics more efficient than forcing people into silence and dragging names through the mud. This is obviously a problem, for a number of reasons, most concerning is how common false positives are.

[Diarcesia]

Cancel culture, and especially deplatforming are effective vehicles to preventing the dissemination of reactionary viewpoints. If something better comes up, then we go for that.

With a goal as unending and ill-defined as that, you'll be hard-pressed to find tactics more efficient than forcing people into silence and dragging names through the mud. This is obviously a problem, for a number of reasons, most concerning is how common false positives are.

It's this decade's war on terror.

[Proctopeo]

With a goal as unending and ill-defined as that, you'll be hard-pressed to find tactics more efficient than forcing people into silence and dragging names through the mud. This is obviously a problem, for a number of reasons, most concerning is how common false positives are.

It's this decade's war on terror.

Or war on drugs.

Let's kill three birds with one stone by cancelling the cartels!

[James_xenoland]

Yes, unironically. Shame reactionaries whenever possible.
This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, seriously.

the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

According to Popper, the sort of view you claim to defend would seem to leave room for "reactionaries" to give rational arguments for their views in the public sphere, so long as they don't resort to or encourage violence.

Are you willing to listen to "reactionary" arguments? Or will you deny us even that?

Very good post.. (Was just about to post that quote.. which seems to get left out so often when this is brought up.) Not to mention that it was all more musing than statement to begin with. Not very well thought-out musings at that. Even worse is that the whole concept is mischaracterized and completely misunderstood by the "geniuses" who regurgitate it out in their rantings and desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable. The paradox of tolerance is not a refutation of the concept of free speech/thought/expression, it wouldn't be a paradox if it was, it would be called the "fallacy of tolerance". Intolerance of the intolerant is itself intolerance.. that's what actually makes it a paradox and not a fallacy! And before anyone attempts.. "violence" or direct threats of such, are not a refutation of the condition/title of intolerance when speaking about speech and expression. Those are acts, illegal acts.. We have laws and rules to deal with that. The whole argument is merely a form of bait and switch, a fallacy and an attempt to confuse the issue. Intolerance of "intolerance" is intolerant.. full stop! The whole concept is totalitarian/authoritarian apologism.