7 ms·

Thought experiment: Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

by phillmv 11y ago

apsec112 11y ago
"Cooperation is unstable, in both game theory and evolutionary biology, without some kind of punishment for defection. So it's one thing to subtract points off someone's reputation for mistakes they make themselves, directly. But if you also look askance at someone for refusing to castigate a person or idea, then that is punishment of non-punishers, a far more dangerous idiom that can lock an equilibrium in place even if it's harmful to everyone involved." - http://lesswrong.com/lw/42/tolerate_tolerance/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/42/tolerate_tolerance/
- zardgiv 11y ago
  Quoting a big old paragraph from someone else without providing any of your own content is just lazy.
sparky_z 11y ago
As long as they don't act on their views (except to write essays explaining and discussing them), then no. If they were rude to me or to others (in a personal way), then I would not want to associate with them, but that's true of anybody regardless of their views.
- phillmv 11y ago
  You're not OP but I can't dignify an asinine Yudkowsky quote with a reply, so you get one instead. Why are essays non-actions in your view? Suppose someone had a lengthly career writing $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW essays and promoting them on the internet. Indeed, was famous for it. Is there no $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW that would cause you to feel awkward about being known to associate with this person?
  - sparky_z 11y ago
    I never said essays are non-actions. In fact, I used them as an example of them a type of action: one which would not cause me to disassociate myself from someone else. I might feel a little awkward about it, mostly because I'm sure there would be several people like you doing their damnedest to make me feel that way. I'm not a robot, and I'm subject to all the same sorts of social pressure as everybody else. But if essay writing was their only "crime", I like to think that I would resist that pressure. I believe strongly in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas (not just in the "constitutional law" sense, but in the "how we should act as individuals in a free liberal society" sense). It's the only antidote to groupthink. Imagine how much sooner public attitudes to homosexuality might have shifted if people had always felt free to discuss alternatives to the status quo without being ostracized. Not that I don't think we should hold people to certain standards. I just think those standards should be behavior-based, not opinion-based. In another reply, you mentioned Karl Popper's quote about not tolerating intolerance, which I fully agree with. But intolerance is a behavior, not an opinion. People have called this guy a racist (and maybe he is; I haven't read his writing), but it's the people who refuse to be in the same room as him who are acting intolerantly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy seems happy to share the conference with anyone who wants to attend, regardless of their race. That's tolerance, no matter what he thinks in his secret heart of hearts, or even what he has written about on the internet.
    - phillmv 11y ago
      I suppose I just don't understand why you'd consider proselytizing abhorrent views to be an insufficient cause or behaviour. They occupy space, and are capable of terrorizing others just all the same. To extend my other comment, which you've read: Suppose you and I were friends. Suppose further that I discover that you routinely have over Mr Qux, who has an extensive archive of Medium posts suggesting that society would be better off if my ethnic group were to be exterminated. Mr Qux doesn't say it needs to happen. He spends a lot of time recommending that people not act on his words. But there it is, essay after essay carefully explaining how all of society's ills would be solved if my ethnic group were to just disappear overnight. Why, you reply, we only ever discuss software architecture. He's charming and effusive, and exceedingly polite whenever in the presence of others of your ethnic group. His medium posts never come up for discussion! He's a brilliant software engineer, you go on. In fact, I'm sure he'd be a great hire at my company and have forwarded his resume. It'd be irrelevant to me how pleasant this person is. He considers me unworthy of breathing the same air. Should he ever be in a position of power over me, how could I possibly trust him to be impartial? How am I supposed to believe that his impressively well articulated views on my inferiority would never impinge on his ability to produce an objective assessment of my abilities? It'd be hard for me not to interpret your behaviour as implicitly condoning that man's views. -- Nobody's ever threatened to extinguish my ethnic group, tho there are some negative stereotypes. But it's rather easy for me to empathize with the above scenario.
stcredzero 11y ago
Thought experiment: Is there a point at which you can treat a person as "sufficiently abhorrent" to dissuade you from associating with them? Does this point include being a productive member of society and taking part in a democratic civic life? In terms of having a tolerant and open multicultural society, the only things that shouldn't be tolerated are actions and words that run counter to having a tolerant and open multicultural society. Sexism and racism run counter to a tolerant and open multicultural society. However, the exercise of authority to shun those with opinions you don't like is also intolerance. It's obeying "the letter" of tolerance but runs entirely counter to the spirit of tolerance. If you advocate a society where the government codifies and enacts tolerance, but all the citizens are intolerant in their civic life, then you advocate a society of divided enemy groups with a dead civic life, where opposing camps uneasily coexist, fling epithets over walls, and begin to regard the "others" as less than human. You can't fight intolerance with intolerance precisely because you can't fight hate with hate. The only real way to fight intolerance is through real communication and convincing people. Venting frustration only plays into "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."
- phillmv 11y ago
  Yes, of course, obviously. I would not associate myself with, say, someone who in their off time writes long diatribes about how my ethnic group is lazy, incompetent, undeserving of legal rights and fit only to be exterminated or enslaved. I'd be a fool not to shun this person and encourage others to do the same, however nice and pleasant they may be in person. For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole. What you describe is not a new problem. To quote Karl Popper, >Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - 11y ago
Turing_Machine 11y ago
How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century. If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?
- tatterdemalion 11y ago
  This factually false. Preventable deaths as the result of government policy are atrocious, but they are not murder. "Capitalists" would not come out looking good either if the deaths that resulted from government policy in capitalist countries were called "capitalist murders." EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the gulags weren't murder, or that the Holodomor wasn't murder. I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent. If you lock someone in a room, prevent him from leaving, and don't give him food, he will die, and you will be (correctly) charged with murder. Can you name the capitalist countries that have murdered millions of their own citizens for us? Or even one such country? Nazi Germany was an authoritarian socialist regime, so don't even try going there. Thanks.
    - tatterdemalion 11y ago
      You are deeply ignorant about modern history and your posts are thinly veiled ideological statements. It would be better for everyone if you didn't post.
- richmarr 11y ago
  Surely this is about as rationally meaningful as counting the number of deaths caused by people who nominally identify as Christian and basing your opinion of all Christians on that.
ankushnarula 11y ago
"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls from the same link in the other thread) So some people sincerely believe Yarvin's very presence is a threat while others find his online philosophical rants to be little more than meanderings. With that said here's my answer to your thought experiment: Yarvin would be uninvited if he had been proven (not alleged) to have: * harmed or advocated harm to anyone * rallied for pro-discriminatory policies * lobbied for pro-discriminatory policies * addressed someone with discriminatory slurs If he were to deny the evidence then it would be a done deal and he would be banned. However, everyone gets a chance to repent in my book. So if he had been proven to do these things and he came clean (or eventually came clean) then he would get a chance to publicly apologize online for wide distribution - and again live at the conference at the start of his talk. --- The real answer to your question is that I would not associate with anyone proven to have done abhorrent things. But I regularly associate with people who have all kinds of abhorrent thoughts.

Thought experiment: Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

by phillmv 11y ago

Thought experiment: Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

apsec112 11y ago

"Cooperation is unstable, in both game theory and evolutionary biology, without some kind of punishment for defection. So it's one thing to subtract points off someone's reputation for mistakes they make themselves, directly. But if you also look askance at someone for refusing to castigate a person or idea, then that is punishment of non-punishers, a far more dangerous idiom that can lock an equilibrium in place even if it's harmful to everyone involved." - http://lesswrong.com/lw/42/tolerate_tolerance/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/42/tolerate_tolerance/

zardgiv 11y ago
Quoting a big old paragraph from someone else without providing any of your own content is just lazy.

sparky_z 11y ago

As long as they don't act on their views (except to write essays explaining and discussing them), then no. If they were rude to me or to others (in a personal way), then I would not want to associate with them, but that's true of anybody regardless of their views.

phillmv 11y ago
You're not OP but I can't dignify an asinine Yudkowsky quote with a reply, so you get one instead. Why are essays non-actions in your view? Suppose someone had a lengthly career writing $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW essays and promoting them on the internet. Indeed, was famous for it. Is there no $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW that would cause you to feel awkward about being known to associate with this person?
- sparky_z 11y ago
  I never said essays are non-actions. In fact, I used them as an example of them a type of action: one which would not cause me to disassociate myself from someone else. I might feel a little awkward about it, mostly because I'm sure there would be several people like you doing their damnedest to make me feel that way. I'm not a robot, and I'm subject to all the same sorts of social pressure as everybody else. But if essay writing was their only "crime", I like to think that I would resist that pressure. I believe strongly in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas (not just in the "constitutional law" sense, but in the "how we should act as individuals in a free liberal society" sense). It's the only antidote to groupthink. Imagine how much sooner public attitudes to homosexuality might have shifted if people had always felt free to discuss alternatives to the status quo without being ostracized. Not that I don't think we should hold people to certain standards. I just think those standards should be behavior-based, not opinion-based. In another reply, you mentioned Karl Popper's quote about not tolerating intolerance, which I fully agree with. But intolerance is a behavior, not an opinion. People have called this guy a racist (and maybe he is; I haven't read his writing), but it's the people who refuse to be in the same room as him who are acting intolerantly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy seems happy to share the conference with anyone who wants to attend, regardless of their race. That's tolerance, no matter what he thinks in his secret heart of hearts, or even what he has written about on the internet.
  - phillmv 11y ago
    I suppose I just don't understand why you'd consider proselytizing abhorrent views to be an insufficient cause or behaviour. They occupy space, and are capable of terrorizing others just all the same. To extend my other comment, which you've read: Suppose you and I were friends. Suppose further that I discover that you routinely have over Mr Qux, who has an extensive archive of Medium posts suggesting that society would be better off if my ethnic group were to be exterminated. Mr Qux doesn't say it needs to happen. He spends a lot of time recommending that people not act on his words. But there it is, essay after essay carefully explaining how all of society's ills would be solved if my ethnic group were to just disappear overnight. Why, you reply, we only ever discuss software architecture. He's charming and effusive, and exceedingly polite whenever in the presence of others of your ethnic group. His medium posts never come up for discussion! He's a brilliant software engineer, you go on. In fact, I'm sure he'd be a great hire at my company and have forwarded his resume. It'd be irrelevant to me how pleasant this person is. He considers me unworthy of breathing the same air. Should he ever be in a position of power over me, how could I possibly trust him to be impartial? How am I supposed to believe that his impressively well articulated views on my inferiority would never impinge on his ability to produce an objective assessment of my abilities? It'd be hard for me not to interpret your behaviour as implicitly condoning that man's views. -- Nobody's ever threatened to extinguish my ethnic group, tho there are some negative stereotypes. But it's rather easy for me to empathize with the above scenario.

stcredzero 11y ago

Thought experiment: Is there a point at which you can treat a person as "sufficiently abhorrent" to dissuade you from associating with them? Does this point include being a productive member of society and taking part in a democratic civic life? In terms of having a tolerant and open multicultural society, the only things that shouldn't be tolerated are actions and words that run counter to having a tolerant and open multicultural society. Sexism and racism run counter to a tolerant and open multicultural society. However, the exercise of authority to shun those with opinions you don't like is also intolerance. It's obeying "the letter" of tolerance but runs entirely counter to the spirit of tolerance. If you advocate a society where the government codifies and enacts tolerance, but all the citizens are intolerant in their civic life, then you advocate a society of divided enemy groups with a dead civic life, where opposing camps uneasily coexist, fling epithets over walls, and begin to regard the "others" as less than human. You can't fight intolerance with intolerance precisely because you can't fight hate with hate. The only real way to fight intolerance is through real communication and convincing people. Venting frustration only plays into "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."

phillmv 11y ago
Yes, of course, obviously. I would not associate myself with, say, someone who in their off time writes long diatribes about how my ethnic group is lazy, incompetent, undeserving of legal rights and fit only to be exterminated or enslaved. I'd be a fool not to shun this person and encourage others to do the same, however nice and pleasant they may be in person. For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole. What you describe is not a new problem. To quote Karl Popper, >Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- 11y ago

Turing_Machine 11y ago

How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century. If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?

tatterdemalion 11y ago
This factually false. Preventable deaths as the result of government policy are atrocious, but they are not murder. "Capitalists" would not come out looking good either if the deaths that resulted from government policy in capitalist countries were called "capitalist murders." EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the gulags weren't murder, or that the Holodomor wasn't murder. I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent. If you lock someone in a room, prevent him from leaving, and don't give him food, he will die, and you will be (correctly) charged with murder. Can you name the capitalist countries that have murdered millions of their own citizens for us? Or even one such country? Nazi Germany was an authoritarian socialist regime, so don't even try going there. Thanks.
  - tatterdemalion 11y ago
    You are deeply ignorant about modern history and your posts are thinly veiled ideological statements. It would be better for everyone if you didn't post.
richmarr 11y ago
Surely this is about as rationally meaningful as counting the number of deaths caused by people who nominally identify as Christian and basing your opinion of all Christians on that.

ankushnarula 11y ago

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls from the same link in the other thread) So some people sincerely believe Yarvin's very presence is a threat while others find his online philosophical rants to be little more than meanderings. With that said here's my answer to your thought experiment: Yarvin would be uninvited if he had been proven (not alleged) to have: * harmed or advocated harm to anyone * rallied for pro-discriminatory policies * lobbied for pro-discriminatory policies * addressed someone with discriminatory slurs If he were to deny the evidence then it would be a done deal and he would be banned. However, everyone gets a chance to repent in my book. So if he had been proven to do these things and he came clean (or eventually came clean) then he would get a chance to publicly apologize online for wide distribution - and again live at the conference at the start of his talk. --- The real answer to your question is that I would not associate with anyone proven to have done abhorrent things. But I regularly associate with people who have all kinds of abhorrent thoughts.