I'm a free speech absolutist because, as far as speech goes, I hate everybody, but, as far as actions go, I've always tried to be a good person and help everyone.
People who claim that there must be «no tolerance for the intolerant» usually ignore this divide between actions and words, probably because, in their own minds, it does not exist.
In any case, if everyone was tolerant, or if we only tolerated those who were also tolerant, how could tolerance be a virtue? Being good only to those who are good to you does not make you a good person. Virtue has value only when it's faced against its opposite.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@josemanuel
> People who claim that there must be «no tolerance for the intolerant» usually ignore this divide between actions and words, probably because, in their own minds, it does not exist.
it's mind-bogging isn't it? as if there was no difference between someone voicing an opinion and someone taking an action _or_ ordering others to take action - which only works if there is force involved already. i think https://blog.freespeechextremist.com/blog/what-is-freedom-of-speech.html is a quite good write up.
imo the only sane way is free speech and voluntarism, but many people hate both of these concepts - it would be life without the training wheels.
