I'll be interested when the author writes on this question which is the crux of the issue. I disbelieve this.Skeptics might ask, “Well, how do we precisely define intolerance, and who gets to make that determination?” This is admittedly a potential point of contention (one that I plan to write about soon)
While we may each have somewhat different opinions on precise definitions, I believe that we can (and should) easily come to a consensus
There will never be a consensus. It's whatever the shifting Supreme Court says it is. If you have the money to get that far. As Justice Potter said in a 1964 decision defining obscenity, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..." I call it the "I know it when I feel it" test. That is as specific as many of these things can get. You would think that something as simple as exposing organised animal abuse would be a no-brainer as protected speech. But it isn't. On another level, it is what local law enforcement says it is, unless you have the money to fight back. Even making a Facebook post denigrating an ex-husband/cop for something silly or liking that post can get you arrested.
Then man will never fly or slaves - be free. Yet here we are. Humanity is still exploring its cognition: you can see it thanks to Sigmund Freud and his excessively new theory of the unconscious mind. Once we're capable of expressing our deepest feelings with the right words, a written consensus shall not take long.There will never be a consensus.
You're talking about something different here. There's consensus about what people can do as defined by the law. The quote is about a consensus about what it's ok to say. The article is about free speech. The author is espousing that there will be a consensus about what people should be allowed to say. If there is a consensus about what people can say, then speech is that much less free because the majority is impinging on the minority who might choose to say it. If no one chose to say it, no such consensus would be necessary.Then man will never fly or slaves - be free. Yet here we are.
I was talking about how things at some point thought to be impossible are possible now thanks to the development of humanity. My point is that humanity has progressed and continues to do so, therefore it's not impossible for us to reach a better state of affairs, even, as I pointed out to someguyfromcanada, it won't happen, during our lifetime. This isn't what freedom of speech is. The majority of people despises racist exclamations from white supremacists' rallies without that despisal being considered an offence on the freedom of speech. The majority of people doesn't like to talk about death or dying, yet thanatology is considered a valuable field of medical science and not in any way immoral in the way it freely discusses dying as a natural mechanism of organic life. The choice to "say it" has to come from some set of rules - one that many of us learn from early age and others (ones incapable of grasping such topics intuitively) are restricted from because it's a taboo to talk about. Best it come from a consensus, meaning people agree to not say something on their own accord: that way, rules are clear and no one is offended by being excluded from making such a choice, therefore less likely to break the rules. It is wrong to try to set control over what's allowed to say because it restricts one's personal autonomy. It is, however, not wrong for people to agree to restrict themselves of something for a good reason.If there is a consensus about what people can say, then speech is that much less free because the majority is impinging on the minority who might choose to say it.
This is not very relevant. You're saying that anything is possible so the word never has no meaning in any context. In this context, I think it does. Most people agree that murder is bad. Some people still do it. If someone said that there will never be a time when no one murders anyone else, you might say that it's always possible that in the future, it may be possible. You may be technically correct in a trivial way, but it's colloquially irrelevant. It doesn't really affect the current discussion because if you can't foresee how it would happen, you can't really change the concept enough to have it make a difference. I should clarify that freedom of speech is different in different countries. I can only speak for the US version. Perhaps the OP is speaking for a different country's version. In the US version, the minority viewpoint is held at the same level as the majority viewpoint. Therefore, consensus screening does not allow for freedom of speech. This part is really unclear. The majority can agree not to say something of their own accord. That doesn't stop anyone else from saying it. It also allows the majority of people to make rules clear that people in a minority don't like. The example in the article is the LGBT group was in a minority before that was silenced. You seem to be assuming that the majority makes the consensus rules in ways that you would always agree with. That might not always be the case. People can make a consensus that they themselves choose not to say. They cannot make a consensus about what other people are not allowed to say. The quote you took and disagreed with says the same thing you just wrote.I was talking about how things at some point thought to be impossible are possible now thanks to the development of humanity. My point is that humanity has progressed and continues to do so, therefore it's not impossible for us to reach a better state of affairs
Best it come from a consensus, meaning people agree to not say something on their own accord: that way, rules are clear and no one is offended by being excluded from making such a choice, therefore less likely to break the rules.
It is wrong to try to set control over what's allowed to say because it restricts one's personal autonomy. It is, however, not wrong for people to agree to restrict themselves of something for a good reason.
I should point out that I haven't read the article and am arguing about a concept, not anything that's been said in the article itself. If I'm missing some crucial details that the article touches upon, I apologize for my ignorance. Which, it seems like, I should, given that we seem to be talking about two different aspects of what freedom of speech is: you're talking about it from a legal, legislative perspective while I talk about it from a more general, ideal perspective. Perhaps, you're right. While I do still foresee human development still going up from this point, I don't have anything in particular to give to the situation but my idealistic vision. We see the idea of consensus differently; I imply that everyone agrees upon a point, not merely the majority. Is it idealistic? Most definitely. Can we achieve that at the moment? Most definitely not. I do believe, however, that as humanity develops as civilized society (or whatever better shape it might take), there might become minds and tools available for us to make such a fundamental shift in paradigm. This is the point I'm arguing from. I understand that it will not serve the immediately visible differences and the divide currently present on the subject, but I think it's a vision to strive towards, no matter what the present holds.This is not very relevant. You're saying that anything is possible so the word never has no meaning in any context. <..> It doesn't really affect the current discussion because if you can't foresee how it would happen, you can't really change the concept enough to have it make a difference.
I don't share your vision about that ideal. One thing I appreciate about being in the US is my right to have my voice heard. I also share the fundamental belief that the sharing of diverse voices leads to better solutions and more rights and freedoms for everyone. Innovation comes from the sharing of different ideas. Getting to the point where everyone agreed on everything is not only unrealistic, it's stifling. People would become like walking zombies, agreeing on the same things. There was an episode of Star Trek, The Next Generation where it seemed like people agreed on everything. Everything looked placid and calm on the surface. When someone disagreed, there was a device to reprogram that person's brain to get back in agreement. People who disagreed with having the device used like that were forcibly taken to it. Even if the tool weren't an actual device, that's not a future I'd be interested in. But the reason I stopped to take the time to respond to your argument that "anything's possible" is because you've used it on me before as a rhetorical device and debate strategy. I feel that it's a poor tactic to further open discussion. It stops discussion because it's difficult to deal with the idea that anything is possible. It has people trying to shoot down possibilities that aren't even in the realm of possibility.We see the idea of consensus differently; I imply that everyone agrees upon a point, not merely the majority. Is it idealistic? Most definitely.
This and your Star Trek analogy imply that it's a forced-upon agreement rather than people coming together in their views and recognize their differences. You seem to think that I mean people to agree upon every single matter, which is taking my argument too far. I don't believe that this is agreement: this, as you point out, is zombie behavior. We experience reality differently due to the massively, incomprehensibly-vast amount of ways each of us brought up. Every detail shapes our view, and so it would be quite difficult to have people to agree on everything, much more useless. There are, however, things that would benefit from such an agreement: like, say, agreeing on not using derogatory terms towards people because they're belittling to the target person and don't address whatever issues you might have with their race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality or another aspect of their lives. It's a can of worms I don't want to open; I was merely providing my perspective on why that could be in the works. As for "anything's possible" argument: thank you for noticing that. I will give it some thought. If there's any other insight you can provide on the matter, I will greatly appreciate it.People would become like walking zombies, agreeing on the same things.
Fair point. Just because something has not happened does not necessarily mean it won't. At the same time, some things that have never happened will also never happen. But saying "I can not foresee an advancement in technology" is very different than "I can not foresee everyone agreeing with the same subjective values". Slavery is one such subjective value that was never, is still not and may never be universally agreed upon.
And yet, we've progressed to the point where but the most uneducated agree upon slavery being wrong. We've explored and will continue to explore and understand what is violence and abuse as we move on to understand what drives us. You can see, a harrowing example as it may be, male rape being talked about more openly nowadays; if yet unaccepted, it's a topic that people are willing to raise and discuss, not merely push away since "men can't be raped" as it used to sound before. That's merely an aspect of how we discover and develop as humanity. I prefer to think that it's going to progress to the point where subjective disagreements can be resolved through communication, even if it won't be in our lifetime. We have, after all, come a long way since the dawn of civilization - signified by the fact that people from different backgrounds like you and I can discuss subjective perception of such a vaguely-defined thing as tolerance and intolerance.