[MD] Free Speech

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Tolerance defined by Merriam Webster: "2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs
or
practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." Calling people names
like
stupid, ignorant, uniformed, fools, buffoons, panderers, etc. certainly does not
meet that definition or the meaning of the word as commonly used.  

[Arlo]
As I said, my criticism of the KKK and Coulter rests on intellectual grounds. I
find their positions empty and pandering to emotion and fear. That's not
"calling them names", its an observation of their rhetoric, and why some
respond to it inappropriately.

It hardly makes me "intolerant" to think someone else is wrong. But if that's
the way you want to twist the word, so that you can apply it to me, knock
yourself out. As I said, I support giving everyone a voice, even those I DO
disagree with, or find xenophobically pandering. That's "tolerance".

[Platt]
See definition of tolerance above. Of course not all that is said is of equal
quality. But I don't go around claiming to be tolerant either. Like I'm
intolerant
of professors who preach left-wing garbage to their students.

[Arlo]
What you basic claim is is that "tolerance does not exist". By reducing
"tolerance" to include "believing someone else is wrong", you're just arguing
that "tolerance" is a meaningless concept, as "intolerance" is the native,
total and ubiquitous state of man.

But don't you see a difference between criticizing the KKK for espousing
anti-intellectual, fear pandering rhetoric, and what the KKK does? Are both
positions equally guilty of intolerance? Am I just as "intolerant" in
condemning Coulter's lack of intellectual substance, as she is in pandering to
fear and hatred? 

To bring this to a MOQ perspective, I'd say that "intolerance" involves a
subversion of a higher level pattern to elevate one particular social level
pattern. The KKK are intolerant because they pervert intellectual patterns in
attempting to elevate one social level pattern over another. Condemning the KKK
on intellectual grounds is NOT intolerant, because it involves using intellect
to expose and criticize this immoral attempt. Thus, criticizing Coulter's
manipulation of fear, and poor research and employment of rhetorical tricks and
tactics in misleading and misinforming, is NOT intolerance, but her fear-based
attempt to subvert intellect to a particular social level goal IS intolerant.

But I still don't begrudge her a fair voice. Those who seek to censor her are
wrong. Those who attack her physcially are wrong. What the Academy should do,
and does do in classrooms, is expose her rhetoric for the a-intellectual
propaganda it is. That's not intolerance, that's the _role_ of intellect.