[Andrew_nenakhov]

Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that opposing a current government is 'bad' (this happened in my country in a short span of 15 years). So it turns out that allowing all speech, even 'bad' is less harmful for society in the long run than trying to suppress some speech.

[AYBABTME]

Canada has restrictions on free speech that prevent things like saying hateful stuff. And so far Canada looks pretty democratic and fair to me.

Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...

[refurb]

Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...

[AYBABTME]

Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.

[logicchains]

Some provinces there literally have curfews and police patrolling the street to arrest anyone breaching curfew. Just because it's justified as an attempt to slow the spread ot covid, doesn't make it any less totalitarian.

[AYBABTME]

Temporary emergency measures don't make a totalitarian government. For that matter, similar measures were temporarily taken and then rescinded in the past; proof of non-totalitarianism. Further proof is minority governments and recent changes in governing parties. Totalitarian governments don't have these.

I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.

[pmiller2]

So what?

[cinquemb]

The thing is, even if someone recognizes:

>… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible…

By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.

[jsmeaton]

No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[Andrew_nenakhov]

This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.

If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.

[nobody9999]

Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them.

There's no hypocrisy there.

Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.