[msla]

> That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well

Another example of trying to shut down discussion.

For example, a substantial number of people around the world understand 'tolerance' to mean 'nobody insults my religion' which, of course, means 'nobody depicts homosexual relationships'. Therefore, depicting homosexuality is intolerant, hein?

[JoshTriplett]

> Another example of trying to shut down discussion.

If I were attempting to shut down discussion, I wouldn't have included a more serious version of the definition, in addition to the observation that it's remarkable how often people who want to play rules-lawyer with terms like "intolerant" or "bigot" or "racist" or "sexist" seem primarily interested in carefully excluding their own behavior, or that of groups they consider themselves affiliated with, or in general how often they're speaking from a position as a member of a privileged group.

> For example, a substantial number of people around the world understand 'tolerance' to mean 'nobody insults my religion' which, of course, means 'nobody depicts homosexual relationships'.

Hence tolerating everyone except the intolerant. Membership in one marginalized group does not provide a free pass for intolerance against another, nor does it entitle you to attack another or make another feel unwelcome. You deserve to not be discriminated against or excluded on the basis of your religious beliefs, but not if you're using them to attack other people or deny their rights based on (for instance) gender or orientation. Likewise for cis women intolerant of transwomen, white women intolerant of people of color, LG in LGBTQ+ intolerant of the B and T, and so on.

[msla]

So, if you have Group A and Group B, each claiming the other is doing horrible, offensive things, which group gets deplatformed?

Since I can't legitimately reply yet, consider this a reply:

> any group not specifically defined by their intolerance.

So, would that be Hezbollah or Shas?

[JoshTriplett]

The subset of both groups actually doing the horrible, offensive things. Treating entire groups as a unit rather than as individuals is part of the problem, at least for any group not specifically defined by their intolerance.

[marcus_holmes]

which is all very well, except we're talking about deplatforming entire online communities, not merely individuals.

[JoshTriplett]

Entire communities which are 1) led by people who are themselves causing such problems (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18366322) and 2) utterly failing to deal with any such problems on their platforms.

[happilycentrist]

What's worse, is that the people howling about "intolerance" are engaged in a purity spiral, and demand we be a part of it. It's a circular firing squad, which demands more and more extreme signals of virtue by the day - and those people found insufficiently faithful will be the next week's witches to burn.

It's an ideological death-cult that won't stop eating itself until there are literally only two of them left, facing one another, pointing, and screaming "HERETIC" at the tops of their lungs.

[emerged]

It's a recurring weakness of societies throughout history. There does seem to be strong social push back against it which hopefully implies we are collectively building immunity.