[mbrumlow]

The problem is who decides what views should or should not be tolerated? Some would say if you eat meat you should not be tolerated. Others might think pro-choice ideas should not be tolerated.

That aside, we really need to figure out as a society how to fix a few notions. 1) You have some sort of right to not be offended. 2) You must get outraged at anything you disagree with.

There once was a time when two people with different ideas could be in the same room as each other. But long are those days. Now we live in a time where simply having your name printed next to somebody's name who made a joke you were offended by calls for public outrage and immediate removal of the offending persons name from said list.

Things are in a very bad way...

[hegz]

There was never a time when different ideas were tolerated. The things we tolerate have changed. Maybe the time you speak of was the time when all of your ideas were tolerated.

In the past people tolerated the idea that it was OK to own slaves, now we dont. In the past people did not tolerate the idea that it is OK to be gay, now we do.

[taneq]

I grew up with the understanding that just because someone thought differently to me didn't mean they were wrong, and that it's OK for people to agree to disagree on some things while still remaining friends. This view has definitely gone out of vogue in the past 10 years.

[mwfunk]

Nothing has changed with regard to reasonable people reasonably disagreeing over reasonable differences. The Overton Window has changed for sure, but that's what it does. I struggle to think of any perspective that has moved out of the Overton Window over the past 10 years that I regret losing. If anything the Overton Window has moved backwards in recent years to better accommodate the Alex Joneses of the world, but I don't see how that's a good thing.

[eli_gottlieb]

>The Overton Window has changed for sure, but that's what it does. I struggle to think of any perspective that has moved out of the Overton Window over the past 10 years that I regret losing.

Honestly, I want the Overton Window to be consistent with what people actually do in real life. I've begun to grow uncomfortable with a political environment in which we all need to hash-tag #AbolishICE, when we all know that the actual abolition of the American border is outside the Overton Window for the solid reasons that nobody has come up with a plan to do it, including the people leading the hash-tag campaigns.

If we are to have an Overton Window, I want it to be the same one for rhetoric, actions, and policies. I don't want this world we're getting where we all mouth extremist rhetoric and then pass mild reformist touch-ups to the status quo.

[damnyou]

* Abolishing ICE doesn't require abolishing the border entirely, just abolishing a police force that gets as much funding as the FBI even though it is dedicated to one small subset of violations.

* It is OK to have ideals that you work towards while knowing that you won't necessarily reach them.

[taneq]

Peoples' definition of 'reasonable' has absolutely changed. That's essentially what the Overton Window describes: The set of viewpoints which are considered 'reasonable'.

[hegz]

So you are saying that +10 years ago, someone could tell their friends and coworkers that they were transgender and everyone would just reply "yeah alright, whatever is best for you"

[mbrumlow]

10 years ago? Yeah that is exactly how it was. We had no less than 3 transgender coworkers at any given time. And that was in Texas of all places. I don't know what sort of experience you had but I have a feeling you are letting it cloud your judgment.

[lainga]

This is a very strange opinion to take. What do you think parliaments do and/or did, declare their opinions and then bring out the swords and pistols?*

* excluding that one time with Charles Sumner.

[rhizome]

The problem is who decides what views should or should not be tolerated?

It's not a who, it's a what: context. To the degree it's a who, you're talking about the ethics of everybody within earshot, including the speaker.

[mnm1]

If you fix number one above, number two almost certainly will be fixed too. Maybe we need more and more "offensive" comedians and everyday people. The only way to fix a phobia like this is to super expose people to it. In this case, expose those offended to things that offend them. Over and over again. That's always been my thinking when I create literature for example. Shock people until they are numb. Because no one has a right not to be offended.