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. 😞

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

I was struggling to grasp your point’s connection to mine until I remembered people read headlines without reading content, assessing arguments, checking primary sources. Friendly Atheist’s post is about people leaving FFRF in response to FFRF removing an unpopular article in response to pressure. Were their reasons true & do they justify their response?

They stated their reasons in the quoted excerpts & linked sources. We don’t need to know who they are to evaluate those reasons. Their reasons appear to be that

1. FFRF removed the article due to disagreement.
2. Removing the article suppresses disagreement.
3. By suppressing disagreement, the organization fails to defend its foundational value: freethought.

Seem true on all counts.

Do the reasons justify the response? Does an organization’s failure to defend freethought justify leaving an organization that claims to defend it? I would think so.

Would this argument justify absolutely anyone (even Dawkins) to leave FFRF? That’s the beauty of a sound argument: who you are doesn’t matter.

Got to disagree: this is a purity spiral. Especially for an organization that represents freethought, ending debate by shutting it down is unskilled. Only the weakest thinkers defend ideas that way. It’s better to defeat a bad argument with a better argument, prevail truth over falsehoods, & win opponents over. Better to fight bad ideas with better ideas. It’s okay to be wrong.

The controversial article begins from the uncontroversial thesis that “sex, a biological feature” differs from “gender, the sex role one assumes in society”, and that Grant errs in arguing sex can’t be defined. The article as written doesn’t vilify transgender people. His argument, however, draws conclusions incorrectly

• Transgender women should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters
• Transgender women should not be placed in a women’s prison.

because they are biological males & biological males have higher rates of sexual violence. He also argued that transgender women commit sexual offences at a greater rate based on prison populations.

Countering the argument should have been easy. I would think any qualified person for the role (including biological males) could perform duties in a battered women’s shelter. I’m not sure placing nonviolent transgender offenders in women’s prison would be a problem. (Really, I think the problems inmates suffer in US prisons have more to do with shitty US practices complicit with inmate abuses: other countries have more civilized prisons that stress rehabilitation.) Prison populations are insufficient & unrepresentative of the general population, so that sexual offence rate argument is clearly a fallacy (of incomplete evidence).

His remaining conclusion “Transgender women should not compete athletically against biological women” is harder to deny: sports competitions are separated by sex due to differing advantages of biological sex traits. Transgender athletes who complete transition before puberty mostly lack these advantages, and sports regulations attempt to address this to some extent.

Grant ultimately did raise some good points despite a fatuous argument about biology leading there. Coyne corrected that then drew some wrong conclusions. Healthier debate could have settled differences closer to the truth.

Though I can understand FFRF’s fear to lose donor support, their lack of faith that freethought (rejection of authority & dogmatism) will prevail & settle the truth troubles me. Ceding their values without trying is their loss.