[dllthomas]

Political positions involve decisions about how we use violence to structure society. Such positions can clearly be intolerant, and taking actions to support clearly intolerant positions seems like it should carry the adjective as well. Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a proposition wouldn't be constitutional - but neither was Prop 8. Is this the same degree as that? No, of course not. But there's a problem with your framework and I don't see a trivial solution.

[stcredzero]

Political positions involve decisions about how we use violence to structure society.

More germane to democratic industrialized 1st world nations, is how people choose to refrain from violence to structure society.

Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a proposition wouldn't be constitutional

The "problem" is with your broad definition of intolerance, which you attempt to support with your (self-admitted) straw man involving a hypothetical proposition which would fit the legal (not just customary) definition of hate speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

There is a societal problem with supporting a proposition which could be defined as hate speech, which is directly dangerous and illegal. There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable. We have political mechanisms for dealing with that.

there's a problem with your framework and I don't see a trivial solution.

No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.

There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.

[dllthomas]

First, there is no straw man here. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your position, which I then argue against. What I was constructing was a counterexample that fit what you'd laid out but that I assumed (correctly) that you did not agree with. It's a proof by counterexample of the completeness of your framework.

Second, you deny that there is anything incomplete about your framework, and then you pull in hate speech - which 1) it was by no means clear that you had intended to include (adding "unless hate speech" seems to me a materially different position than without it, and real people probably hold both versions), and 2) it is not entirely clear that Prop 8 shouldn't be considered an example of hate speech (though context being what it was, it is entirely clear that we shouldn't be prosecuting people retroactively for it).

"There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable."

There is no inherent societal problem by virtue of a proposition being constitutionally untenable. Many constitutionally untenable actions entail a tremendous societal problem, though - consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Many would consider temporarily depriving a class of people of rights they'd previously been afforded "a societal problem". In many cases, I think they're clearly correct. Here, I think they're correct but somewhat less clearly (partly due to proximity).

'No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.

There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.'

First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties. These things are adjudicated by individuals deciding who they are and are not comfortable dealing with.

Second, I didn't propose a framework. You'd made an assertion, and I was trying to get at the lines you were drawing around that assertion.

Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions - including speech. It's worth noting that this is why capabilities for anonymous speech are so important. There are some consequences we should clearly be going out of our way to preclude; governmental retribution is antithetical to free speech, violence needs to be prevented, &c. But "I said something people don't like, therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else" is an entirely unavoidable consequence of a free society - the alternative is to force people to do business they don't want to do.

Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue (of which I'm skeptical) there was a flaw in the framework you'd laid out: the lack of mention of hate speech as an exception.

[stcredzero]

First, there is no straw man here. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your position, which I then argue against.

You proposed a fictitious law endorsing hate speech -- in other words an illegal law. Straw man.

First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties.

So the social penalties against gay men were perfectly okay?

Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions

This is an appeal to a minimal standard of behavior. You are free to be a jerk to people you don't like. That's not a wise, compassionate, or great way to be.

Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue

Oh brother. You concoct a straw-man law as part of your argument, then grant it as part of my argument? You have a habit of misplacing referents when it is convenient for you, with the effect of placing fictitious positions into other's mouths. You have done this in this thread and others. I leave it as an exercise for you to find and correct your mistake.

therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else

When people go digging up stuff from six years ago and use it as the basis of a mass action for an issue that they have won, it crosses a line.

So, your position is basically that all supporters of anti gay marriage political positions must be as socially stigmatized "as bad as racists," and that your job as a social activist isn't done until that's the norm. I'm sorry but that defies logic and is simply vindictive. We need not adhere to arbitrary, vindictive, and oversimplified social patterns of the past. (Isn't that part of the point of marriage between whoever wants to marry?) We will be further along in our journey as a pluralistic society when a gay marriage is no big deal at all, just like being in an inter-racial relationship is no big deal in the more cosmopolitan parts of our country. Your activism will be done not when your former opponents are sufficiently shamed and vilified, but when young people find your current attitude and those of Brendan Eich to be the quaint and incomprehensible stories of a past era.

Plenty of "perfectly legal" crappiness got done, and in some places still gets done to people with the "wrong" apparent sexual orientation and outward appearance. Doing more "perfectly legal" things that resemble a witch-hunt is only "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."