Many have said that liberal people in the United States believe in exclusion for the sake of inclusion. Let’s talk about this.
Below is my personal rubric for typifying arguments.
Well, I just use these.
Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew…
I would simply add that an “introductory statement about equality” does not prove that the presenter is about to make a pro-bigotry speech, although it may be viewed as a red flag that it may be.
The other points you raise fall into the broader categories of intellectual honesty broached in the cited Wiki page.
To those who “do not choose sides”, the “conservative” arguments may look reasonable and rational. In this process, people who are harmed by unreasonable arguments continue to be silenced.
Hmmmm. I’d raise the caution that assuming somebody’s beliefs on any given topic can be assumed because they self-identify as “liberal” or “conservative” is risky business at best. For an example, I’d call your attention to this particular result from the General Social Survey:
I think we can agree that believing that another race is less intelligent than yours is a fairly good barometer for racism. And in the 2012 data (I assume 2016 will be available soon) you see that there’s only a marginal difference between the parties on this topic (and yes, I quite understand that “conservative/liberal” is different than “republican/democrat” = point here is that assumptions based on self-identification are questionable).
Once a bigoted argument is presented, many who agree are quick to defend the debater’s right to free speech.
I suppose that’s true, but I don’t even have to hear the argument to support the person’s right to say it. That’s unequivocal.
Those who “do not choose sides” suggest avoiding censorship by letting the bigot continue to share their ideas. Both sets of people reference the first amendment, which is an addition to the United States’ Constitution and one tenth of the Bill of Rights.
Careful here. An Amendment is, by definition, part of the Constitution and just as legally forceful as any other part of the Constitution. The fact that it was an Amendment is not legally relevant.
Unlike the government, the first amendment does not refer to private companies. A private company has the right to do whatever it wants with its employees and its content within legal bounds. Therefore, Google can fire someone who torpedoes their employee productivity by violating their code of conduct. Additionally, an Uber driver can kick someone out of their car for saying something racist if it makes them uncomfortable.
A private college can refuse to allow a racist person to speak.
Maybe. A private college is loaded with students who are there on government loans, and the faculty is loaded with researchers who are on government grants. This is unsettled law, but I suspect that placing a private college in a different category WRT free speech is legally indefensible unless they, their faculty,and their students receive no public money whatsoever.
This means U.S. citizens can tell bigoted people to stop talking when they present unreasonable and/or dangerous ideas. However, the argument that we must listen to and rationally consider hate speech has recently spread like wildfire. This is false.
I have no idea how this misconception was promoted. You always have the right to change the channel, turn your back, and ignore the argumentation. I am not aware of anyone who has argued otherwise.
When citizens give bigots a platform, they allow proven facts to be debated. These conspiracies usually undermine the people who are already constantly marginalized. How is that conducive to a safe work environment, let alone a safe country?
Well, it’s not. The the USSR and China both denied human rights such as speech on the grounds that it could lead to social disruption. They were exactly correct. The exercise of many of the rights in the Bill of Rights has led to violence, not just speech; ask the Mormons how that freedom of religion thing worked out for them.
In the US, we (via the Framers) have decided to accept the risk of social disruption (and possibly violence) because we (via the Framers) hold individual freedoms in such high regard, to the extent that we believe that said rights are not granted by the government, but instead are innate to the human being.
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.
Yes. See above where I speak of the risks of individual freedoms. This is one of them. And it’s not just bigotry; there are multiple examples in the Middle East (you’re seeing it in Turkey right now) where the citizens vote in a religiously oriented Executive, and then that Executive cuts back on the rights that enabled him to be elected. You also saw it in Egypt under Morsi, to the extent that the military came in and had to put things aright.
Popper, however, speaks of what COULD happen, not what WILL happen. In order for tolerance to be destroyed, the citizen support for tolerance would have to disappear. I don’t see us at risk of this.
Allowing the spread of claims backed by outdated, biased science puts marginalized people in danger. Conversely, curbing bigoted claims does not put those in power in the way of any harm. It instead ensures that we as a people stay relatively peaceful and unified.
Well, you’re going there again. It seems to me that you’re making a pitch using the same reasoning that the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea would make. It’s also the same reasoning as to why some Islamic nations limit human rights to the extent they do.
I’d suggest you don’t go there. It doesn’t end well, historically.