3 ms·

I hear this argument a lot, and since you seem sincere in making it I have a serious question. I'd honestly like to hear the answer from you or anyone who agre

• lsc 11y ago
  Let's use an example I face every day. I work in an industry that by in large doesn't hire women or black people. So yes, I'm around people who are very racist and very sexist every day - It's pretty fucking important for me to be able to function socially around people who have political views I consider to be abhorrent - people who act on those beliefs every day. Would a better course of action be for me to leave the industry? because that's what it would mean to cut all the racists out of my life.
  • jonahx 11y ago
    Thanks for answering. The point you're bringing up -- the value of being able to function in a world among people with a wide variety of beliefs that conflict with yours when you have no choice and not much power to effect change -- is totally valid. I thought you were extrapolating from that to argue that we shouldn't take action when we can. In the case of Eich, the power happened to be social pressure, and it was used to oust him. I'm not crazy about the tactics, and such tactics can be abused, but the result in this case is that it's now known that at Mozilla, at least, homophobia isn't tolerated. I thought you were arguing against that result on the grounds that people should have had more "tolerance for diversity of thought," namely the thought that gay people shoudn't have full marriage equality, with a political action to support it. My entire response was based on that premise. If it was a misreading of your intent, I apologize.
    • lsc 11y ago
      > I thought you were arguing against that result on the grounds that people should have had more "tolerance for diversity of thought," namely the thought that gay people shoudn't have full marriage equality, with a political action to support it. I do think that people should be able to have abhorrent political ideas, and should be able to take the legal political action they like, without fear of personal retaliation. We have a process, a set of rules and laws for deciding what to do when you and I disagree on what is right for other people. This is what our political system is for; to solve these sorts of disputes in a organized way, without degenerating into war or lynching or what have you. I mean, it doesn't always work... but the political system is the tool for the problem, and while not perfect, it's a pretty good tool. Certainly, it's the best tool we have; people should be encouraged to use it rather than direct action, I think. Actually, I think the anti-gay-marriage proposition is a good example of our political system working as intended. Sure, it passed, because embarrassingly, that's just how most people in my state feel. But... because we have several layers of laws specifically set up to prevent the majority from simply shitting on a minority, (and I thought the anti-gay marriage thing was especially ugly just because it was one of those laws that shat upon the minority without even bringing the majority benefits.) the law got struck down in the courts. In my opinion? this is exactly what should have happened. Next, I really do think that diversity of ideas and diversity of values is a good thing, even ideas and values that I deeply disagree with. If you really want diversity of ideas, you're gonna need some religious people. I know it doesn't feel that way on HN, or even really in silicon valley, but atheists are the minority here, and while I certainly don't recommend believing any religion, I think that you need to understand religion and understand people who are religious to really understand humanity, and I think my life would be poorer if I excluded all religious people. Religion has a lot of ugliness to it because humanity has a lot of ugliness to it. You understand humanity, you need to see this, to see the ugly parts and the beautiful parts and the parts that are just plain weird. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't call people out for being sexist or racist... you should. And my own policy is to do so in person, as I see it. - I think a "hey, that's not acceptable" isn't so threatening as to make it so I can't work in industry, and I think it does have some corrective effect. It also means that I can continue having a relationship with the person in question. As a matter of policy, I try not to do this in written media[1]. I'm not certain this is the right thing to do or not, honestly, but its a course of action that allows me to speak my conscience and still function in a world of diverse values. [1]post-hoc edit: by 'written media' I mean any place that would get the person I'm calling out in actual trouble. Again, I don't know if this is the right thing to do or not, but we all make our choices. second edit: my previous post, with the example, really only makes sense in the context that I think that you are more personally responsible for direct action you take than for political action you support... e.g. directly doing something evil is worse, in my belief system, than simply supporting a political cause that is evil. I realize that not everyone accepts this, but I think that because the political system is fundamentally a system for discussion and dispute resolution, and has some built-in safeguards, I think that makes proposing terrible ideas less bad than simply implementing said terrible ideas on your own authority. last edit: I want to acknowledge the question you bring up here, which I read as: "Is this (accepting people who have abhorrent values) actually a good thing? or is it just something I tell myself so that I can function in society? Is this just my rationalization?" To which I shrug and say that you have gotten too deep. I'm not sure I like the implications of either possible answer there.