I probably won't carry this discussion very far, since (as I noted when first raising the issue) my energy for old-fashioned Usenet-style political scrums isn't what it used to be. I felt (and feel) strongly enough to post visible support on what I think is an important issue as a matter of nailing my flag to the mast, but I've more or less given up on convincing anyone of anything with my sparkling rhetoric. I'm getting too old and/or tired to fight over whether I'm Right on the Internet. (And if I got no visible support there where the potential readership was all people I actually know, I expect to do rather worse in what's, let's face it, a less friendly room.) So if/when the brickbats start to fly, I'm done, and the field is y'all's.
I'll also note that I'd never heard of Sterling till your post. (There were some nonspecific tweets flying around about racist old white dudes that I now assume referenced him, but not by name.) And even for me, there are some things that life is too short to research. So I'll stipulate the content of the Badash piece as far as the facts of the case go.
As I said then, I grant the basic premise that there are opinions that cross a red line. Obvious uncontroversial example: everyone agrees that if someone comes out as a Nazi, they're basically done in decent society. They can't be jailed for it (though odds of scrutiny for the multiple felonies that every American is guilty of probably go way up), but they have good odds of losing their job and otherwise being social and economic pariahs except among the like-minded. And while I might object to some of that (I really hate some of the ways selective prosecution has developed, even if the target is deserving) I agree with the principle that there are publicly voiced opinions for which civil society properly shows intolerance.
On the other hand, the pluralistic society I want to live in requires that there be a broad range of conflicting opinions on which people can disagree, however bitterly, without consigning their opponents to that sort of pariah status. The limits of tolerance should fall only where something is both extreme and threatening.
no subject
I'll also note that I'd never heard of Sterling till your post. (There were some nonspecific tweets flying around about racist old white dudes that I now assume referenced him, but not by name.) And even for me, there are some things that life is too short to research. So I'll stipulate the content of the Badash piece as far as the facts of the case go.
As I said then, I grant the basic premise that there are opinions that cross a red line. Obvious uncontroversial example: everyone agrees that if someone comes out as a Nazi, they're basically done in decent society. They can't be jailed for it (though odds of scrutiny for the multiple felonies that every American is guilty of probably go way up), but they have good odds of losing their job and otherwise being social and economic pariahs except among the like-minded. And while I might object to some of that (I really hate some of the ways selective prosecution has developed, even if the target is deserving) I agree with the principle that there are publicly voiced opinions for which civil society properly shows intolerance.
On the other hand, the pluralistic society I want to live in requires that there be a broad range of conflicting opinions on which people can disagree, however bitterly, without consigning their opponents to that sort of pariah status. The limits of tolerance should fall only where something is both extreme and threatening.
(continued.)