General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I do not condone killing ... [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some acts of violence are not an infringement of rights -- for example, self-defense.
Some nonviolent acts are infringement of rights, some aren't. If a store owner expresses a controversial sentiment (pro- or anti-Muslim, pro- or anti-gay rights, whatever), he has no kick if people who disagree with him drive right past his store to patronize a less convenient but more politically acceptable competitor. If, however, someone wants more emphatic retaliation against the statement that offended him, and starts spreading a false rumor that the store owner is a convicted pedophile, then that is a violation of the store owner's rights.
What if I, too, find myself offended by the store owner's statement? That wouldn't make a difference. Defamation is nonviolent but it's still wrong. There is no level of offensiveness that the store owner could reach that would justify me in lying about him. If that's an example of what you mean by asking whether I have to tolerate his intolerance, then, yes, I do.
As a practical matter, yes, someone who takes a prominent stance that's likely to offend a lot of people does thereby increase his or her chance of being the target of retaliation -- retaliation that might be a peaceful boycott, a smear campaign, or murder. And, as a practical matter, a woman who goes to a party at a fraternity probably does thereby increase her chance of being raped, just as someone who leaves his door unlocked increases his chance of being robbed. I'm not clear on what "owns it" means in this context. It's sensible to criticize a robbery victim for not locking his door but that doesn't exonerate the thief.