A question that commonly arises around free-speech discussions is: "Who sets the grounds for what is permissible?" Personally I cannot think of any individual or group of individuals throughout history with enough intelligence, foresight, or moral fortitude to decide what should or should not be believed and said.

Much of the rules and reasoning of censorship (or in this case, banishment and ostracism) is, at least rhetorically, centered around the fear of some future effect of speech and beliefs on the public welfare, as if someone could make such predictions. Examples include the "bad tendency" test of British common law and the "clear and present danger" standard once used to punish anti-war activism in the United States. Of course, the danger was never clear nor present, the tendency undefined, and such fears were as fatuous as any fever-dream. We should be wary of these people. For the simple reason that there is no known way of gauging the future influence of rhetoric on human action, I would argue these predictions were used to disguise threats to orthodoxy beneath an air of concern for the general welfare.

In short, we shouldn't give anyone the power to make such decisions, and we should tolerate everything short of action that impedes another's liberty.

No power hierarchy exists in this scenario. It’s just two individuals in a community. The thoughts he has or expresses are unable to elevate him to any position of power. — NOS4A2

Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.

Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.

Let's try it. Use your words and thoughts to set the power hierarchy between yourself and I.

Of course. I still think that normally, the community will, in effect, side with the racist and expel the target of racism (as long as the target is in the minority). Again, the community needn't be racist, they're simply driven by not wanting trouble in the neighborhood. And the source of the trouble is the target of racism, not the racist. — baker

I'm not referencing some real event here - my situation is entirely hypothetical and in the situation that I envisioned the community is not racist or sympathetic to racism, the community is mostly just composed of relatively isolated individuals who are not racist.

I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation. — Hanover

I think a formal expulsion would set a dangerous precedent, but I was more concerned here with softer measures like doxxing or social shunning.

These kinds of racists are rare. — ssu

Yeah, these types of racists are definitely rare. I don't think I've ever actually met one. I'm just envisioning a thought experiment here and this is in no way a real situation that I'm involved with. I think you're right that "thought crimes" shouldn't be prosecuted or met with any type of legal penalty, but I'm more talking about soft power measures like doxxing or something along those lines. I would start to wonder whether drastic action is needed if more racists like the aforementioned one were to move in. That would seem to be a very interesting question.

Never mind thought experiments. People hold all sorts of highly disreputable ideas.

What should be done about it? Nothing. No doxxing, no cancelling, no marches around the block objecting to the offenders ideas. In other words, don't escalate a disreputable, objectionable OPINIONS into an even more disruptive, divisive behavior (on their part or yours).

I am not against demonstrations, heated debates, and so on. There are plenty of ACTIONS that are disreputable and objectionable which can and should be resisted. — Bitter Crank

Woah, you're coming down to the right of me here - how about that for a change of pace? You're usually to the left of me.

I understand wanting to take the high road here, but are you telling me that you're not going to talk about it to your other neighbors? Once that ball gets rolling good luck getting it to stop.

If you want to be cheeky I suppose you could casually bring it up around mixed company and see what the response is on a level playing field. Of course, that's not quite being the bigger person. — Outlander

You're telling me that "being the bigger person" means not sharing this knowledge with the rest of the neighborhood?

So, if he's not breaking any laws or creating any problems, and neither are you, why create one? — Outlander

This is an interesting perspective to have. So by not acting, we don't "create" a problem and in turn help keep the peace? That's the high road to take? The neighbor is polite by the way and gives common courtesy, do you return those courtesies? Would you be creating a problem if you didn't return those courtesies?

The problem with "hunting" such people is that they rarely will do you the nicety of being so explicit, and the act of the hunt itself,.trying to parse true intentions from either deception or misunderstanding, has its own pitfalls. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100:

but there comes a point where ostracism is the only step to take, barring physical force. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, I think we gotta ostracize. It's on the community to do so, and I'm not calling for a legal expulsion here as other posters has insinuated. It probably needs to come down to community-level actions or behaviors to treat the cancer.

You can continually challenge their world view and present facts and logical arguments, but when someone doesn't want to listen and takes any disagreement as signs of oppression and reacts with anger, discussion isn't fruitful. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh 100% - it's funny because other posters were saying we should have an honest discussion with the neighbor but that really isn't what we ought to be doing because an actual discussion implies that we'd be open his views when we're really not.

So you're basically approving of the first amendment?

Oh I support the first amendment entirely - the neighbor certainly has a right to say what he wants to say.

In short, we shouldn't give anyone the power to make such decisions, and we should tolerate everything short of action that impedes another's liberty. — NOS4A2

Yeah, we can tolerate it. I'm certainly not saying we should lynch the neighbor or attack the neighbor's house with molotov cocktails in the middle of the night. I'm not even saying we should expel the neighbor through formal legal procedure, although there may be some argument to do so.

The neighbor is really just your problem. The neighbor is polite, do you return their courtesies? Do you show up at a neighborhood brunch or dinner where the neighbor is present? How do you react to others in the neighborhood getting acquainted with this neighbor?

These are the questions that I'm interested in: What individual or community level actions are happening or should happen?

. I think you're right that "thought crimes" shouldn't be prosecuted or met with any type of legal penalty, but I'm more talking about soft power measures like doxxing or something along those lines. — BitconnectCarlos

The most effective way for any society is simply to disregard or think that the person is crazy, or has obviously some personal problems. Of course crazy people can be harmful to themselves and to others, but we treat them and the whole situation differently.

I think here at first it's important to think about this in a broader sense:

When is the situation so alarming that we ought to take drastic action in what otherwise would be in the category of "freedom of thought"? And there the answer is again when someone takes or some people take these issues to physical actions. Just some crank having crazy thoughts won't do. It's the situation when we understand that the views are widespread and not just people with personal problems cherish them. Still, there has to be a true breakdown in social cohesion in the society and likely political and economic turmoil. Then people can get "crazy". Then "hate speech" etc. can really be dangerous. As the saying goes, when people don't have anything to lose, they can lose it.

I think the real problem is that we are too adaptive. If someone is killed in our neighborhood we are shocked. If another person is killed the next day we aren't so shocked anymore as we have already adapted to the fact that people do get killed in our neighborhood. We see then the past having this idyllic peace that has been shattered and that a new reality has taken over. In fact, to state that some horrendous crime has been "an unfortunate yet a rare singular event", especially when the perpetrator is caught and put behind bars, draws harsh criticism for the security minded people who advocate that this is the new normal.

And we have a model for the worst possible outcome, a genocide, in Zombie-movies. Because in order for a true genocide to happen, people simply have to think of those being killed as zombies, not being humans. Or simply there being a war and the others being the enemy.

I'm not referencing some real event here - my situation is entirely hypothetical and in the situation that I envisioned the community is not racist or sympathetic to racism, the community is mostly just composed of relatively isolated individuals who are not racist. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I'm saying that people generally don't want trouble. And in an effort to avoid trouble, they will do things that can look racist, homophobic etc. even though they aren't motivated by such intentions.
"You're X, the new neighbor is against X. I don't want any trouble, so I'm going to shun you. It's probably best if you move out."

The neighbor is polite, do you return their courtesies? Do you show up at a neighborhood brunch or dinner where the neighbor is present? How do you react to others in the neighborhood getting acquainted with this neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed, there now exists a (potential) conflict of interests. Your status in the community, since you're now the target of someone's ism, is in question. Your relationship with other neighbors is now put to the test. Will they still accept you, will they demote you, or will they shun you because you've become the target of someone's ism?

It's similar to the situation you find yourself in if your kid gets beaten up by the neighbor's kid or vice versa, or if a drunk neighbor runs you over with the car.

A neighbor isn't automatically a friend, nor an ally.

Indeed, there now exists a (potential) conflict of interests. Your status in the community, since you're now the target of someone's ism, is in question. Your relationship with other neighbors is now put to the test. Will they still accept you, will they demote you, or will they shun you because you've become the target of someone's ism? — baker

Lets put you in the neighbor's shoes here.

Lets say one of your neighbors - an acquaintance - comes to you with incontrovertible proof that another one of your neighbors said what the bigot said. You don't have strong pre-existing ties to either of these two people. Has your attitude changed towards the offender? Do you smile and wave next time you see the bigot? If the bigot tries to talk to you and befriend you, how do you react?

You can believe what you want man :)

The victims are those in the photos and videos. — NOS4A2

What makes them victims? Your idea that thoughts/beliefs alone cannot harm others is based, presumably, on the fact that thoughts/beliefs are private, and have no causal effect on others wellbeing. Wouldn’t any acts done in private that do not involve others meet this same criteria?

Lets say one of your neighbors - an acquaintance - comes to you with incontrovertible proof that another one of your neighbors said what the bigot said. You don't have strong pre-existing ties to either of these two people. Has your attitude changed towards the offender? Do you smile and wave next time you see the bigot? If the bigot tries to talk to you and befriend you, how do you react? — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, I know a similar situation first-hand. What I do is I make an effort to be professional and that's it. Don't smile, don't chit chat, don't get involved. This always seems to be the best policy: not becoming too cordial too soon, but giving things time and waiting for facts to become known.

Another example I remember back from college: A classmate whose father was a Serb told me about this. Another classmate told her to her face that Serbs should go "back where they came from". Meaning, one girl said to another girl that people like that other girl's father should go away (and presumably, her included, since she was also half-Serbian). Yet the girl who said that carried on as if all was well between the two. The girl whose father was a Serb told me that and asked me for advice on how to treat the other girl, given that up to that point, they were on very good terms.

Actually, I know a similar situation first-hand. What I do is I make an effort to be professional and that's it. Don't smile, don't chit chat, don't get involved. This always seems to be the best policy: not becoming too cordial too soon, but giving things time and waiting for facts to become known. — baker

I think that's a reasonable response, and I think a good description of this response would be that you're socially distancing yourself, which I would consider a form of ostracizing. You're emotionally and socially distancing yourself.

Another example I remember back from college: A classmate whose father was a Serb told me about this. Another classmate told her to her face that Serbs should go "back where they came from". Meaning, one girl said to another girl that people like that other girl's father should go away (and presumably, her included, since she was also half-Serbian). Yet the girl who said that carried on as if all was well between the two. The girl whose father was a Serb told me that and asked me for advice on how to treat the other girl, given that up to that point, they were on very good terms. — baker

I wonder whether the girl was Bosnian. That would put the genocide within a generation.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

The way you phrase this question makes it ambiguous who the community is identified with. Is the community the "majority," which includes the rabid racist? Or is the community on the side of the minority in this case??

Call it a town.

All communities have majorities and minorities, it's just a matter of the criteria.

In this example the community doesn't know anything because you're the only one who has heard, but if word were to spread you would be confident that the majority would sympathize with you.

But are we ever confident of that...unless we are the majority?

but if word were to spread you would be confident that the majority would sympathize with you. — BitconnectCarlos

This is highly questionable. Even good friends and family can turn on you if you find yourself in trouble, what to speak of semi-stangers/acquaintances like people in the same town.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed).

Siding with the person in trouble will possibly mean trouble for you.

But are we ever confident of that...unless we are the majority? — Pantagruel

I think so. I'm a Jew in a community where liberal Christians are the majority and I'm confident that they would condemn any act of blatant anti-semitism or racism. Half of the houses in my neighborhood have those "black lives matter" or those "no human is illegal" signs.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed). — baker

I don't think you're in trouble in this example though. Yeah, I understand that people can distance themselves from you if you lose your job or fall into financial hardship, but if someone simply says a comment to you I wouldn't classify that as a major life downfall.

It's likely the racist who has gotten him or herself into trouble here, depending on the community.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed).
— baker

I don't think you're in trouble in this example though. Yeah, I understand that people can distance themselves from you if you lose your job or fall into financial hardship, but if someone simply says a comment to you I wouldn't classify that as a major life downfall. — BitconnectCarlos

??
How do you get to that from what I said??

It was really the best that I could do with your response.

If that's your observation about humanity, then I'm sorry but the people you're around are just really shitty. Like seriously, someone in your community gets cancer and people just start shunning them because "they don't want trouble." If I ever heard someone saying that I would know immediately that they're a complete moron.

Similarly, if someone's response to virulent racism towards another member of the community is "I don't want trouble" then that person is a coward and deserves zero respect.

If this is how you honestly expect things to go down then people are just basically stupid, cowardly, and useless.

I learned the very hard way what can be rightfully expected of people and what can't.

People don't want to be asked, much less forced to be charitable or compassionate.

If you end up in some kind of trouble (whether it's getting cancer or losing your job, or being the victim of a racist attack), people will generally start to see you as weak, as a liability, as not worth investing in, and they will likely consider you responsible for whatever hardship befell you. So they won't want to have anything to do with you.