Will/Can respect come back for differing opinions?

[Croesy Blue]

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

There is genuine proof throughout all of human history that if we are tolerant of intollerant views life gets worse for a lot of people very quickly.

Anyone trying to justify this by people shouldn't be offended is either too stupid to understand the point or deliberately trying to give intollerent people a safe space to air their views.

Certain differing opinions deserve to be shouted down, if your opinions keep getting shouted down maybe you're not an outspoken genius, you're just a twat.

[Feedback]

There is genuine proof throughout all of human history that if we are tolerant of intollerant views life gets worse for a lot of people very quickly.

Anyone trying to justify this by people shouldn't be offended is either too stupid to understand the point or deliberately trying to give intollerent people a safe space to air their views.

Certain differing opinions deserve to be shouted down, if your opinions keep getting shouted down maybe you're not an outspoken genius, you're just a twat.

at one point the Church burnt heretics at the stake. Are you suggesting that the heretics, such as Galileo (who was placed under house arrest) who advocated science over religion were wrong?

Again I will state that we have laws to stop the promotion of bigotry and hatred, laws that can remove an individuals liberty via the justice system. This is the correct approach. however, we have moved so far away from that system its at a point where someone using the term coloured is pressured into leaving his job.

[Croesy Blue]

at one point the Church burnt heretics at the stake. Are you suggesting that the heretics, such as Galileo (who was placed under house arrest) who advocated science over religion were wrong?

Again I will state that we have laws to stop the promotion of bigotry and hatred, laws that can remove an individuals liberty via the justice system. This is the correct approach. however, we have moved so far away from that system its at a point where someone using the term coloured is pressured into leaving his job.

I don't understand how your first point is relevant at all. Surely it backs up what I'm saying we should be shouting down poeple who are wrongly persecuting a people. The church in your example are the intollerant ones.

Your second point is wrong because he wasn't made to stand down from his position for using the word coloured. He was forced to stand down from a powerful position because the mistakes he kept making showed he was not fit to do the role.

[Feedback]

I don't understand how your first point is relevant at all. Surely it backs up what I'm saying we should be shouting down poeple who are wrongly persecuting a people. The church in your example are the intollerant ones.

you've misunderstood. Back in the 16th century, Galileo was the one with the extreme viewpoint, yet here we are, 500 years later, understanding he was correct. Society ebbs and flows and we cannot say for sure who should be the arbiter of what is and is not socially correct.

Your second point is wrong because he wasn't made to stand down from his position for using the word coloured. He was forced to stand down from a powerful position because the mistakes he kept making showed he was not fit to do the role.

mistakes?

you place too much emphasis on words, not deeds. What if he was the best person for the job? what if the FA made great strides in diversity under his stewardship? Is it better to have someone who wants to make real change for the better, but isn't up to date with the current terminology, or is it better to have someone who is woke but hasn't a clue about how to make change happen?

I've said it before, we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we get upset over every single thing.

[Croesy Blue]

you've misunderstood. Back in the 16th century, Galileo was the one with the extreme viewpoint, yet here we are, 500 years later, understanding he was correct. Society ebbs and flows and we cannot say for sure who should be the arbiter of what is and is not socially correct.

mistakes?

you place too much emphasis on words, not deeds. What if he was the best person for the job? what if the FA made great strides in diversity under his stewardship? Is it better to have someone who wants to make real change for the better, but isn't up to date with the current terminology, or is it better to have someone who is woke but hasn't a clue about how to make change happen?

I've said it before, we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we get upset over every single thing.

I can accept your point on him tbh, I can also understand why he thought it was necessary to step down.

I don't think the people I'm talking about needing to shout down are in the same league, I'm talking about genuine racists/sexists/homophobes etc.

He was just a bit a berk , I can understand both points of view on his resignation.

[Feedback]

I can accept your point on him tbh, I can also understand why he thought it was necessary to step down.

I don't think the people I'm talking about needing to shout down are in the same league, I'm talking about genuine racists/sexists/homophobes etc.

He was just a bit a berk , I can understand both points of view on his resignation.

we have common ground here.