[otterley]

Voicing a different opinion is different than demanding someone be punished because they have a different opinion.

Maintaining diversity of opinion is a two-way street that requires tolerance from everyone. Refusing to invite intolerant people is not hypocritical; it ensures the culture of spirited debate is preserved for all comers.

[gozo]

That is the exact same argument that the people you are opposing are making, just that you differ in opinion what is considered intolerant.

And saying that you should try to exclude people who don't agree with you seems very much like "demanding someone be punished because they have a different opinion".

[otterley]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being intentionally obtuse.

How would you design a system that is supposed to foster debate and differing opinions such that people don't shut it down because they cannot tolerate those differing opinions?

[gozo]

You're the one not responding to my arguments, how am I the one being obtuse?

How is excluding people you think are intolerant any better then they excluding you for thinking you are intolerant? How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? How is it not you that don't tolerate people when you think it's a good idea to try to exclude others from college based on their opinion?

I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the other party to argue their case as best as they can on their own merits instead of trying to shame the other group that are expressing their opinions. People who support free speech should celebrate the outpouring of free speech happening on campuses right now and they should form their own groups arguing for their causes rather than thinking they are morally superior even though they really just disagree since they want the same thing they are accusing their opponents for.

[otterley]

> How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant?

By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job.

> I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the other party to argue their case as best as they can on their own merits instead of trying to shame the other group that are expressing their opinions. People who support free speech should celebrate the outpouring of free speech happening on campuses right now and they should form their own groups arguing for their causes rather than thinking they are morally superior even though they really just disagree since they want the same thing they are accusing their opponents for.

That's not the issue here. If this were all that were happening, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit.

[gozo]

> The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit.

Yeah, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that "(otherwise lawful) offense" should be tolerated, but in the next say that calls for resignations or retribution (like boycotts) shouldn't be? Those aren't normally unlawful. Isn't that literally "lawful offence except those I disagree with like calls for resignation"?

[drumdance]

Let's stop speaking in abstractions. Look at the Silliman situation. Erika Christakis was persecuted not for anything she said, but for merely suggesting that the best way for students to deal with insensitive actions is to confront them directly instead of expecting the administration to do it for them.

If only more people behaved is way in the workplace.

[otterley]

It's not about disagreement. It's about the institution. If you don't agree with one of the main purposes of the institution -- to inculcate tolerance of differing views -- don't go there.

Meanwhile, the rest of us think this institution as it stands today still provides an incredibly valuable function in society. We make better decisions as a result because we're able to digest more opinions without vomiting all over ourselves.

[DanBC]

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job.

Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

[otterley]

In many cases, sure, they do. It's pretty much the textbook definition of intolerance. But this is not the issue before us.

Here, the students were admitted, presumably with knowledge of these facts, and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

[drumdance]

He's tolerating your argument right this moment. He's not agreeing with you, but he's not asking you to be fired or kicked out of this forum either.