On Coercion:

Eric Schie- EXCELLENT blogger, in a good post, wrote:

"The piece also touched on the Muhammad cartoons, and misplaced tolerance -- i.e. tolerance of intolerance:"

I don't think that's misplaced tolerance. Maybe we mean different things, though. Intolerance sans coercion MUST be tolerated, is what I'm thinking.

Which translates to bigots must be allowed to be bigoted BUT they must know that ALL people's rights must be respected. I'm taking it from the perspective of an individual's right to be a bigoted dick without the government using coercion to change his or/her behavior as long as he doesn't interfere with another' rights.

So no hate crimes etc.- just crimes.

But I don't know why I tend to use different definitions of the word tolerance when I read "intolerance must not be tolerated."

I'm translating it to tolerance sans coercion must be coercively ended. But why not translate it as intolerance with coercion must not be tolerated, though we shouldn't use coercion as a way to show it won't be tolerated? I have a headache now.

Here I go:

If intolerance is defined to include coercion we must be intolerant of it, that is use coercion to stop it.

If intolerance doesn't include coercion we must be tolerant of it, however.

Lol.

Coercion is the sword to cut the Gordian knots the multicultaralist have tied us in.