7 ms·

Yes. The first person is showing prejudice with an exclusionary attitude. The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it. The

by meric 11y ago

Yes. The first person is showing prejudice with an exclusionary attitude. The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it. The first person is prejudiced against gays based on his own experience growing up as well as his ignorance. The first person is being who they are. The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. (Of course if the second person is the gay person the first person is prejudiced against, then I would sympathise with them instead because they was the target of the first person's prejudice). And to think you're good when you're judging people with the same attitude to align with society's prevailing morals is distasteful to me. But I understand it and I will still let my kids meet you. It's human nature to follow the crowd.

thatcat 11y ago
>The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it The first person is ignorant, the second person is annoyed with ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as being in a minority group. There's no human right to remain ignorant.
- meric 11y ago
  If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them. Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
  - thatcat 11y ago
    The which is freeer software decision and whether to tolerate the intolerant or not are both a paradox. You can't know whether you're enabling a net increase in freedom/tolerance or decreasing it because you're doing both and won't know the result until its too late. Either decision, like choosing any value, requires a moral compromise based on the realities of the situation.
    - meric 11y ago
      I agree with this statement - I don't think they're analogous because each situation has a different reality. It's like saying "As a submarine commander, you should be able to command this space shuttle because flying a shuttle is just like commanding a submarine - both vehicles are surrounded by a hostile environment." But of course we know the two environments are not analogous like that - they have different realities.
      - thatcat 11y ago
        Commercial software licenses and intolerance are both a result of the self interest of the individual in society and are a defensive measure that protects individual values from community over reach. GPL and enforcing-tolerance are based on community values that protect a shared interest against the interests of individuals.
JadeNB 11y ago
> The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. I have a suspicion that we have totally different ways of thinking about this, so our disagreement might be about the axioms rather than their consequences, in which case it's probably useless on both sides for us to argue; but I would like to have one more go, to see if our disagreement is really so fundamental. Why is it valid to say automatically that someone who is intolerant of homophobia is just doing what society is telling him or her to do? Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude, so that being intolerant of it is very much going against societal norms. Even if I'm in a society where homosexuals are (correctly) treated as equals, then describing as simple conformity my revulsion at an attempt to treat them unequally seems to be extremely uncharitable. Why not simply say that I, too, am "being who I am", because of my upbringing or any other reason?
- meric 11y ago
  I have a suspicion that we have totally different ways of thinking about this, so our disagreement might be about the axioms rather than their consequences, in which case it's probably useless on both sides for us to argue; but I would like to have one more go, to see if our disagreement is really so fundamental. Okay. Let's try that. Why is it valid to say automatically that someone who is intolerant of homophobia is just doing what society is telling him or her to do? Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude, so that being intolerant of it is very much going against societal norms. That's a good question. If we were in such a society, the annoyance I have for people who follows the crowd and do not think for themselves would not apply to you. Even if I'm in a society where homosexuals are (correctly) treated as equals, then describing as simple conformity my revulsion at an attempt to treat them unequally seems to be extremely uncharitable. Why not simply say that I, too, am "being who I am", because of my upbringing or any other reason? I have distaste for the intolerant of the intolerant, because on one hand, they know the harm intolerance can cause in society, and on the other, they engage in the very same intolerance they know causes harm, and then they have the gall to tell people they are morally superior. That is knowingly causing harm, and then tricking people into thinking they're tolerating - all it provokes is the very same intolerance in other people, and the very same impulse to disguise this intolerance in others. The intolerant have a passive effect of reducing society's tolerance, which have the consequence of suffering in individuals. The intolerant of the intolerant have the same passive effect, except they're now knowingly partaking in this activity. The intolerance of the intolerant makes the following situation possible: "Don't talk to that man, he is a misogynist! Oh by the way I hate misogynists. :)". Intolerance in society allows possible situations where simple label will smear the reputation of someone in other's minds for life, before people get to really know who the person is. And that's the core problem of prejudice, isn't it?

by meric 11y ago

thatcat 11y ago

>The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it The first person is ignorant, the second person is annoyed with ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as being in a minority group. There's no human right to remain ignorant.

meric 11y ago
If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them. Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
- thatcat 11y ago
  The which is freeer software decision and whether to tolerate the intolerant or not are both a paradox. You can't know whether you're enabling a net increase in freedom/tolerance or decreasing it because you're doing both and won't know the result until its too late. Either decision, like choosing any value, requires a moral compromise based on the realities of the situation.
  - meric 11y ago
    I agree with this statement - I don't think they're analogous because each situation has a different reality. It's like saying "As a submarine commander, you should be able to command this space shuttle because flying a shuttle is just like commanding a submarine - both vehicles are surrounded by a hostile environment." But of course we know the two environments are not analogous like that - they have different realities.
    - thatcat 11y ago
      Commercial software licenses and intolerance are both a result of the self interest of the individual in society and are a defensive measure that protects individual values from community over reach. GPL and enforcing-tolerance are based on community values that protect a shared interest against the interests of individuals.

JadeNB 11y ago

> The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. I have a suspicion that we have totally different ways of thinking about this, so our disagreement might be about the axioms rather than their consequences, in which case it's probably useless on both sides for us to argue; but I would like to have one more go, to see if our disagreement is really so fundamental. Why is it valid to say automatically that someone who is intolerant of homophobia is just doing what society is telling him or her to do? Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude, so that being intolerant of it is very much going against societal norms. Even if I'm in a society where homosexuals are (correctly) treated as equals, then describing as simple conformity my revulsion at an attempt to treat them unequally seems to be extremely uncharitable. Why not simply say that I, too, am "being who I am", because of my upbringing or any other reason?

meric 11y ago
I have a suspicion that we have totally different ways of thinking about this, so our disagreement might be about the axioms rather than their consequences, in which case it's probably useless on both sides for us to argue; but I would like to have one more go, to see if our disagreement is really so fundamental. Okay. Let's try that. Why is it valid to say automatically that someone who is intolerant of homophobia is just doing what society is telling him or her to do? Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude, so that being intolerant of it is very much going against societal norms. That's a good question. If we were in such a society, the annoyance I have for people who follows the crowd and do not think for themselves would not apply to you. Even if I'm in a society where homosexuals are (correctly) treated as equals, then describing as simple conformity my revulsion at an attempt to treat them unequally seems to be extremely uncharitable. Why not simply say that I, too, am "being who I am", because of my upbringing or any other reason? I have distaste for the intolerant of the intolerant, because on one hand, they know the harm intolerance can cause in society, and on the other, they engage in the very same intolerance they know causes harm, and then they have the gall to tell people they are morally superior. That is knowingly causing harm, and then tricking people into thinking they're tolerating - all it provokes is the very same intolerance in other people, and the very same impulse to disguise this intolerance in others. The intolerant have a passive effect of reducing society's tolerance, which have the consequence of suffering in individuals. The intolerant of the intolerant have the same passive effect, except they're now knowingly partaking in this activity. The intolerance of the intolerant makes the following situation possible: "Don't talk to that man, he is a misogynist! Oh by the way I hate misogynists. :)". Intolerance in society allows possible situations where simple label will smear the reputation of someone in other's minds for life, before people get to really know who the person is. And that's the core problem of prejudice, isn't it?