If there’s an unacceptable use of Force against the intolerant, then is there one which is acceptable and if there is

I don’t see how that follows: spell out the logic?

use of Force against intolerance

I’m mostly confused, because I was thinking of violence/force used by the intolerant for intolerant acts: that can be justifiably constrained.

Legal constraint implies force by legal authorities: violators go to jail or get legal penalties.

The argument isn’t rational to begin with, rationality cannot disprove it in the minds of those who believe it.

So, people are just powerless to do anything but follow at the call of bigotry & disinformation, and they’re witless masses totally unamenable to reason? Got it.

The KKK has largely been expelled from society for the past century (not entirely).

That’s a weird example: white supremacists & KKK spoke openly and terrorized with complicit support of local & state authorities during the civil rights movement. Despite that, the civil rights movement prevailed. Without understating the difficulties, challenging reprehensible ideas is evidently possible.

Speaking with a Nazi posits that their ideology has the same value as yours.

No: association fallacy. Now you’re being irrational. You were before, but are now, too. It merely means we disagree, same as rebutting someone who is wrong.

Nazis should be expelled from society in their entirety.

Unless we exterminate them or deport them (where?), I don’t see how we do that. Maybe you mean suppress them from freely expressing themselves? Sacrificing any civil rights to achieve any of that is almost certainly an unjust threat to civil rights. Maybe you prioritize civil rights, too, but think sacrificing them is necessary to defend them?

Neoliberal propaganda has convinced you that all ideas have value.

No. We’re merely convinced bad causes can be defeated justly, because it’s been done before.

Sometimes I wonder if these types of claims discouraging the healthy, open discourse we had decades ago are disinformation designed (1) to make people think the effort is futile and (2) to inflame & harden polarization. Same with comics like this.

The paradox of tolerance doesn’t lead to a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls’:

Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

Accordingly, constraining some liberties such as freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty. However, violence or violations of rights & regulations could justifiably be constrained.

Polysemy is a regular part of language, and rather than accept Warner’s assumptions, Elle could have countered that tolerance (in the stricter sense of allowing or overlooking an objectionable matter) is satisfied.

That said, tolerance is not that confusing, and a looser sense of tolerant (meaning not intolerant) was commonly understood as more live and let live, open-minded, gracious, charitable, inclusive, etc. In the 90s & early 2000s, leftists were more commonly easy-going, freedom loving, unconventional, uncritical like the Dude while rightists were more rigid puritans critical of any provocative influence (non-judeo-christian) they believed would corrupt society & children. When rightists claimed to be tolerant (stricter sense), skeptics might wonder if they’re really that tolerant of objects they frequently complain about. Leftists, in contrast, were largely more tolerant in that looser sense. Later, more critical leftists gained influence and may have increasingly distanced themselves from people with disagreeable ideas even on technologies that could bring people together (can’t platform those pesky ideas).

Consent can have a more open meaning, though it seems you’re trying to load a biased definition. It’s an agreement to participate where rights are at stake. Your negative connotation isn’t necessary: people can consent to share something fun together or take risks. There are certainly other words that could better fit your idea like interest, eagerness, or willingness.

I don’t know what identity is doing here. I think we already knew without much explanation that social identity is made up of multiple, diverse factors: some personally determined, others inherited or socially determined. Buzzy intersectionality isn’t needed to understand that, and it doesn’t blow the imagination.

That said, there was crazy homophobia back then.

Yes, not to understate it. Though it was a few years earlier, Matthew Shepard’s murder was prominent, and similar homophobic killings continued into the 2000s. Nightclub shootings took headlines this decade & the last, too. While parts of society seem more tolerant nowadays, regressive parts of society have hardly changed at all, so it’s hard to gauge.

That take seems a bit inaccurate.

Metrosexual meant going above & beyond in male beauty care (a pretty low bar): going to a salon to get manicures & pedicures, maybe apply foundation & eyeliner, manscaping. Possibly wearing those low-heel shoes that show the ankles without socks.

I also remember the words fag and like being ambiguous such that in written contexts I’d sometimes see the clarification good kind of fag to mean homosexual in contrast to an insult directed at someone the insulter dislikes (for being pretentious, aggravating, annoying or whatever). In speech, the distinction was often understood from tone & context, so someone could be a fag (homosexual) yet not an effing fag (detestable), and their company might be absolutely welcome for that reason. An insulter would usually pile on imagery of the subject performing homosexual acts as the recipient of such insults typically disapproves portrayals of themselves that way. The insult was a way to puncture egos & authorities claiming a traditionally masculine image. It wasn’t particularly effective against out & proud homosexuals or people who weren’t homophobic. While fag wasn’t always an insult, however, bigots & religious zealots often drew no distinction, either.

Transgenders are different: under no circumstances can we put America’s transgenders in danger. They are far too precious to risk in combat. Like for the sake of homosexuals 16 years ago, it has been the solemn oath of every man in uniform to lay down his life in defense of America’s precious, precious transgenders.

I mostly pointed out the different definitions one might use so that people wouldn’t read my examples of rights violations and think “what’s that got to do with democracy?”.

Yet you wrote

That’s not even true in a very minimal definition of democracy

Are you contradicting yourself later by conceding (flawed as it may be) it fit “a very minimal definition of democracy”?

Other common restrictions in ancient Greek democracies were being a male citizen (who was born to 2 citizens), a minimum age, completed military service. Still, rule wasn’t restricted to oligarchs or monarchs. I think we’d still call that a democracy in contrast to everything else.

Your writing seems inconsistent.

If it existed today it would probably not even be called a democracy by western standards.

Do good, objective definitions vary by time & culture? Seems problematic.

Seems you’re claiming something doesn’t fit a minimal definition of democracy while using a non-minimal definition of democracy. Sure, it’s a flawed democracy, but we can repudiate it on those considerations it fails and clarify them without overgeneralizing.

So if you mean democracy in a very literal and minimal sense[…]

If you mean in it a more general sense[…]

Where would ancient Greek democracy fall in this spectrum?

I question your reading comprehension. It’s much easier to claim something causes harm than to demonstrate it would.

History doesn’t support your assumptions: recalling the civil rights & free speech movements in the US, civil rights advanced despite similar free speech constraints I’ve advocated (eg, clear & present danger or imminent lawless action standard) and despite a harsher environment with Jim Crow laws and white supremacists speaking freely. Civil rights can advance with such narrow restrictions on free speech and have before when circumstances were worse.

Passkeys or WebAuthn are an open web standard, and the implementation is flexible. An authenticator can be implemented in software, with a hardware system integrated into the client device, or off-device.

Exportability/portability of the passkey is up to the authenticator. Bitwarden already exports them, and other authenticators likely do, too.

WebAuthn relying parties (ie, web applications) make trust decisions by specifying characteristics of eligible authenticators & authentication responses & by checking data reported in the responses. Those decisions are left to the relying party’s discretion. I could imagine locked-down workplace environments allowing only company-approved configurations connect to internal systems.

WebAuthn has no bearing on whether an app runs on a custom platform: that’s entirely on the developer & platform capabilities to reveal customization.

Complaining about semantics isn’t the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.

The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you’re willing to undermine rights for expressions that won’t actually harm/threaten, then I don’t care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.

By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?

No & already answered.

Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.

From context

Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties

and key words

only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe

and my direct statement

speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty

I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.

Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.

The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls’:

Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.

Where’s the part where they act on these detestable ideas & we’re powerless to stop these acts & hold people accountable for their actions? Behaviors are acts (distinct from speech) and I see only claims to defend speech.

Unless you exterminate everyone you disagree with, people with ideas you disapprove of will always exist. Better to know who they are by letting them tell us. Civil liberties & a right to exist apply as much to them as to you.

As you wrote, people are malleable. They don’t need the input of others to develop incorrect ideas & common biases on their own especially from an early age. As that article on early childhood development of racial prejudices points out, avoiding talking about discriminatory biases or delaying the topic is not the answer. Early intervention with active, explicit conversation is important to correct biases & misconceptions acquired from implicit social factors, which suppression of speech will not prevent. With appropriate work, people can & often need to be corrected.

Agreement through suppressing opposing ideas is unreliable & inadequate. It doesn’t correct self-learned biases. It assumes people will only hold unopposed ideas, which indicates they never reliably held them. If an idea has any merit, people should hold them despite flawed challenges, because we did the work of educating them properly & they know better. Choosing to compromise freedoms instead is flat out lazy & an insult to everyone’s dignity.

Finally, it’s pretty asinine to assume we need to sacrifice civil liberties to gain civil liberties. In the United States, the free speech & civil liberties movements gained together. That happened despite worse racism then with Jim Crow laws & white supremacists speaking freely. If we were able to gain civil liberties then under harsher conditions, then we shouldn’t have to sacrifice them now.

Insistence on classic freedom of speech doesn’t mean centrist, moderate, or apolitical. It means supporting civil liberties without being an ignorant hypocrite that takes those hard-fought liberties for granted. There was a whole movement that was pivotal to the civil liberties movement.

But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety.

Does it? I’ve never seen that proven convincingly. It goes against my experience lived embracing the tired old saying sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me around detestable assholes spouting particularly offensive ideas at me. Realizing that expression gave me power: their words matter not a damn to me as long as they don’t turn into action. Once they turn into action, however, a warning to call the authorities usually settles the matter uneventfully.

Words are bullshit. Anyone can put words together: they’re just noise. People can spout nonsense forever & form their nonsense echo chambers as long as nothing comes of it. Their words are not the problem, they’re an indication. Actions are the real problem.

If you don’t want people putting their offensive ideas into action, then stop them, not their words. Block that legislation from getting through. Argue their ideas are garbage. Change the minds of those in power. Educate more people to your side.

I’m disappointed so many people detract a key civil liberty so easily & need the obvious explained.

He doesn’t say much that wasn’t cut out

My brain hurts trying to make sense of the negations in this conundrum. Thanks for that. 😞

🤦 Can we get this in actual text or maybe a cool link to the actual content for those of us who need it for accessibility & the rest of us who don’t like trying to read pixelated garbage? Screenshots of text are such a scourge. 😭

I don’t get the fuss about the leads, either. Came in with no preconceptions & thought it was fine. 🤷