57 ms·

> more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of the isle This hits the nail on the head. It's a moralistic sort of righteous indignation and it

> more and more Moral Fashion Police on the democratic side of the isle This hits the nail on the head. It's a moralistic sort of righteous indignation and it's profoundly, dangerously illiberal. In addition, many of these are the same people who are pleased that HRC is not being challenged over the revelations in the email leaks so far. I want whoever takes office to have been vetted as much as possible by journalists. How could anyone want their "side" to win so badly that they'd prefer their own candidate evade accountability (or vindication!) for alleged wrongdoing? There has been very little adversarial press behavior toward either candidate... the press in this election has simply focused on stories that will get lots of clicks, such as those about sex, money, etc.

tptacek 10y ago
People keep claiming that this sentiment is "profoundly illiberal". Those people should read more liberal philosophy, because it is not as if this is the first time this issue has come up. You can bring it back to John Stuart Mill if you like, but (very unsurprisingly) it's also one of the major themes of post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat to society. If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat, you're on safe ground arguing against appeals agains Trump. But Altman and Graham do not agree with you.
- grandalf 10y ago
  I do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again. Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc GOP candidates for several elections have said much the same stuff Trump is saying only with a rhetorical style more like HRC's. Trump borrows economic populism (and its racist undertones) from the rust belt rhetoric of democrats. > If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat This is not my belief. I believe both Trump's and HRC's intolerance both pose a major threat. I also believe that the trend toward unabashed executive power is the biggest threat to stability. HRC and Trump both show a similar chance of abusing this, and fortunately congress would be more vigilant about preventing Trump from abusing it, since he has not spent years aligning interest groups in preparation for his day in power. I could not vote for either of the two major party candidates, my position is not to defend Trump but to apply some of the same criticisms to HRC which seemingly exist in the blind spot of Altman, Graham, and other HRC supporters.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think. I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      True. FWIW I think Thiel's goal is to take the opportunity to be on the national stage a bit, expecting to have a bit more involvement in future elections. Also, FWIW, I think people who live in CA should seriously consider voting for a third party candidate, since HRC is certain to win the state.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I think a lot of people are chill about Trump and Trumpism because they're sure Hillary Clinton is going to win. They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, because nothing is forcing them to. They, too, should reconsider. First: Trump could very well win. The polls before Brexit leaned slightly towards its success, but that depended on how you read them: almost as many polls showed it headed for defeat as success. Brexit took Europe by surprise. It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. Trump, too, is a part of the popular nationalism movement. Not only that, but there's still 3 weeks of election to go. If you believe Sam Wang, this has been an extremely stable election, and it's unlikely to tip. But if you believe Nate Silver, this has been one of the most volatile elections since we've begun tracking it, and the two previous big swings in opinion took less than a week each. Second: there will be no getting around the tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism. If Trump loses, he'll create his own cable news network, which will have a built-in audience of millions. That network will drag Fox News further to the right. Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. Remember: the GOP may not have believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy in 2015, but they were sure as shit aware that Trump was a grave threat to their chances at re-taking the White House. His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent.
- dkrich 10y ago
  I don't disagree regarding Trump, but where do we draw the line? Should any employer who's executive board strongly denounces Trump's views and rhetoric fire employees who support him via donations? Should Google suppress his website? I don't think Trump is the real threat to society, but rather that he is able to garner such widespread support in American society in 2016, and I don't think that's going to be fixed by taking punitive actions against his supporters.
  - ggggtez 10y ago
    Theil's not an employee. What are you suggesting when asking where do we draw the line? To require defining how racist is racist enough? I think we all know the line for Trump was crossed. Money is political speech, which Theil can legally do. But no one has to accept his collaboration.
    - pdx 10y ago
      > To require defining how racist is racist enough? That word just never ceases to be a source of power and comfort to you, doesn't it? Liberals have used that word too often to shut down debate and dehumanize their opponent or victim. We're done giving you that super power anymore. Now you'll have to make real arguments. It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens. Hey, why didn't you talk about what a homophobe he is? Well, I'm sure you'll use it next time, when Thiel is not the subject of your outrage.
      - jimbokun 10y ago
        sigh Just a coincidence Trump continues to accuse the Central Park teenagers of a murder for which they were acquited long ago. Just a coincidence Trump supports "stop and frisk", even though it has been shown to be applied disproportionately to African Americans. Just a coincidence Trump said a Mexican judge could not fairly adjudicate his case because he was Mexican. I could go on and on and on until my fingers got tired typing. Racist objectively applies to Donald Trump, its just what the word means.
- belorn 10y ago
  I can only point to my own government and it's laws (Sweden), but "threat to society" is not an exception in our free speech laws. Threat to individuals or identifiable groups (ie, minorities) are. There is a distinction between someone speaking words of non-violent revolution, ie a explicit threat to society, and words that encourage violence against a group of people. The first is not illegal, and both the law and the philosophy that created that law do not make claims that it should be illegal. The second form is, which is a direct result of that post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. It is important to distinguish the two, and free speech laws is a good hint that society has already done this in the past.
- jflatow 10y ago
  In general, groups that want to suspend tolerance do so because they believe tolerating such behavior/people poses a threat to society. The people you are telling to read more liberal philosophy clearly believe that the real threat to a tolerant society is suspending tolerance itself.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Just to start things off, you do realize that firing him would appear to be illegal? At least, assuming there are no arcane reasons why California's laws do not apply here: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm Labor Code section 1101 Protects employees who engage or participate in politics or who become candidates for public office. An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation or policy that forbids, controls, directs or tends to direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. --- On to the philosophical point, why not go back to Karl Popper? If we look carefully, though, we see that he predicated this intolerance of intolerance on protection from violence. He was not afraid of any intolerance of words so much as those who would close their ears and swing their fists. So it was more a sort of right of self defense against anyone who would use violence and not persuasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Note how his argument is predicated on the need to protect people from violence. Unless that is a need there simply isn't a reason to ban things. But wait, the Trump supporters have been violent, right? That was all over the news, I'm sure. Everyone saw that. So we have good reason to suppress a violent movement now, do we not? Well, maybe, if we didn't see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5IuJGHuIkzY Wait, no, that guy made ACORN videos. Can't be trusted! Must be fake! But, umm, we've seen that lady before. At about 17:40 in this video, you see the same person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMzYaO2syE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMzYaO2syE You can even see a tiny mole on her chest in the same place. She's there, blocking the road and doing everything possible to delay the cops from clearing that out. But how do we know who she really works for? Well, what do you know, she's listed on the FEC website, they can tell us! (We can trust the FEC... right?) https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016 https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... Spender Recipient State Purpose Disbursement date Amount STAND UP FOR OHIO PAC RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ REIMBURSEMENT FOR T-SHIRT PRINTING 06-10-2016 $320.00 STAND UP FOR OHIO PAC RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ POLITICAL CONSULTING FEE 06-01-2016 $17,500.00 MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION ZULEMA RODRIGUEZ AZ TRAVEL EXP 05-24-2016 $1,108.97 MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ REIMBURSEMENT 05-24-2016 $1,108.97 HILLARY FOR AMERICA RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ PHONE 02-29-2016 $30.00 HILLARY FOR AMERICA RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ PAYROLL 02-29-2016 $1,610.24 In other news, she brags about her work at other protests where you may have seen pictures of a very injured cop. Lest we forget, remember that they also framed Sanders supporters for some of this stuff. Given that this violence was deliberate, do you also, based on that philosophic reasoning, support the same censure of anyone who supports Hillary? It would appear to be the logical conclusion to your argument given the campaign's deliberate violence, would it not? For the record, I find Trump a deplorable candidate. But the very idea that people would attempt to force us into a one party system by means of organized violence or excommunication from society won't sit well with many people. Especially not when it also appears that people are also herein advocating an action that appears to be flat-out illegal!
- josh5555 10y ago
  Do you believe that Islamic fundamentalists pose a threat? Their whole philosophy is quintessential intolerance. I suspect you are having a moment of cognitive dissonance. Nothing is as black and white as you proclaim.
- smsm42 10y ago
  The question is not who scores more imaginary points on John Stuart Mill's or anybody else's "liberality scale". They question is whether we want to have a community in which one has to constantly look over one's shoulder to not run afoul of the thought police, and where virtue signaling and participating in Two Minutes Hate becomes mandatory, or else. Programming and software community turning into this scares me much more than any presidential election could. > We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat to society. This is too easy. You just declare "this guy poses threat to society" and you don't have to play by the rules anymore.
  - madmax96 10y ago
    This. Around 40% of Americans support Trump. Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself? You win over people with empathy and reasoned appeals to shared values, not firing them and refusing to associate at all with them -- that just drives them further away.
    - infosample 10y ago
      > Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself? Yes. Has 40% been on the wrong side of slavery, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights? Has more progress been made through war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or empathy/reasoned appeals? There is a time for empathy, a time to ignore, and a time to fight. It's not a matter of percentage, it's a matter of wrong. Unfortunately, we don't usually have a consensus on what views are wrong until decades later.
      - mzw_mzw 10y ago
        >Has more progress been made through war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or empathy/reasoned appeals? You can bully people into a resentful silence temporarily with war, assassinations, violence, riots, (angry) protests. But if you want to build something that lasts and doesn't require an army of policemen to keep it in power, you have to go with the empathy and reasoned appeals.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 10y ago

People keep claiming that this sentiment is "profoundly illiberal". Those people should read more liberal philosophy, because it is not as if this is the first time this issue has come up. You can bring it back to John Stuart Mill if you like, but (very unsurprisingly) it's also one of the major themes of post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat to society. If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat, you're on safe ground arguing against appeals agains Trump. But Altman and Graham do not agree with you.

grandalf 10y ago
I do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again. Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc GOP candidates for several elections have said much the same stuff Trump is saying only with a rhetorical style more like HRC's. Trump borrows economic populism (and its racist undertones) from the rust belt rhetoric of democrats. > If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat This is not my belief. I believe both Trump's and HRC's intolerance both pose a major threat. I also believe that the trend toward unabashed executive power is the biggest threat to stability. HRC and Trump both show a similar chance of abusing this, and fortunately congress would be more vigilant about preventing Trump from abusing it, since he has not spent years aligning interest groups in preparation for his day in power. I could not vote for either of the two major party candidates, my position is not to defend Trump but to apply some of the same criticisms to HRC which seemingly exist in the blind spot of Altman, Graham, and other HRC supporters.
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think. I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    True. FWIW I think Thiel's goal is to take the opportunity to be on the national stage a bit, expecting to have a bit more involvement in future elections. Also, FWIW, I think people who live in CA should seriously consider voting for a third party candidate, since HRC is certain to win the state.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I think a lot of people are chill about Trump and Trumpism because they're sure Hillary Clinton is going to win. They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, because nothing is forcing them to. They, too, should reconsider. First: Trump could very well win. The polls before Brexit leaned slightly towards its success, but that depended on how you read them: almost as many polls showed it headed for defeat as success. Brexit took Europe by surprise. It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. Trump, too, is a part of the popular nationalism movement. Not only that, but there's still 3 weeks of election to go. If you believe Sam Wang, this has been an extremely stable election, and it's unlikely to tip. But if you believe Nate Silver, this has been one of the most volatile elections since we've begun tracking it, and the two previous big swings in opinion took less than a week each. Second: there will be no getting around the tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism. If Trump loses, he'll create his own cable news network, which will have a built-in audience of millions. That network will drag Fox News further to the right. Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020. Remember: the GOP may not have believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy in 2015, but they were sure as shit aware that Trump was a grave threat to their chances at re-taking the White House. His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent.
dkrich 10y ago
I don't disagree regarding Trump, but where do we draw the line? Should any employer who's executive board strongly denounces Trump's views and rhetoric fire employees who support him via donations? Should Google suppress his website? I don't think Trump is the real threat to society, but rather that he is able to garner such widespread support in American society in 2016, and I don't think that's going to be fixed by taking punitive actions against his supporters.
- ggggtez 10y ago
  Theil's not an employee. What are you suggesting when asking where do we draw the line? To require defining how racist is racist enough? I think we all know the line for Trump was crossed. Money is political speech, which Theil can legally do. But no one has to accept his collaboration.
  - pdx 10y ago
    > To require defining how racist is racist enough? That word just never ceases to be a source of power and comfort to you, doesn't it? Liberals have used that word too often to shut down debate and dehumanize their opponent or victim. We're done giving you that super power anymore. Now you'll have to make real arguments. It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens. Hey, why didn't you talk about what a homophobe he is? Well, I'm sure you'll use it next time, when Thiel is not the subject of your outrage.
    - jimbokun 10y ago
      sigh Just a coincidence Trump continues to accuse the Central Park teenagers of a murder for which they were acquited long ago. Just a coincidence Trump supports "stop and frisk", even though it has been shown to be applied disproportionately to African Americans. Just a coincidence Trump said a Mexican judge could not fairly adjudicate his case because he was Mexican. I could go on and on and on until my fingers got tired typing. Racist objectively applies to Donald Trump, its just what the word means.
belorn 10y ago
I can only point to my own government and it's laws (Sweden), but "threat to society" is not an exception in our free speech laws. Threat to individuals or identifiable groups (ie, minorities) are. There is a distinction between someone speaking words of non-violent revolution, ie a explicit threat to society, and words that encourage violence against a group of people. The first is not illegal, and both the law and the philosophy that created that law do not make claims that it should be illegal. The second form is, which is a direct result of that post-World-War-2 liberal philosophy. It is important to distinguish the two, and free speech laws is a good hint that society has already done this in the past.
jflatow 10y ago
In general, groups that want to suspend tolerance do so because they believe tolerating such behavior/people poses a threat to society. The people you are telling to read more liberal philosophy clearly believe that the real threat to a tolerant society is suspending tolerance itself.
Natsu 10y ago
Just to start things off, you do realize that firing him would appear to be illegal? At least, assuming there are no arcane reasons why California's laws do not apply here: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm Labor Code section 1101 Protects employees who engage or participate in politics or who become candidates for public office. An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation or policy that forbids, controls, directs or tends to direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. --- On to the philosophical point, why not go back to Karl Popper? If we look carefully, though, we see that he predicated this intolerance of intolerance on protection from violence. He was not afraid of any intolerance of words so much as those who would close their ears and swing their fists. So it was more a sort of right of self defense against anyone who would use violence and not persuasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Note how his argument is predicated on the need to protect people from violence. Unless that is a need there simply isn't a reason to ban things. But wait, the Trump supporters have been violent, right? That was all over the news, I'm sure. Everyone saw that. So we have good reason to suppress a violent movement now, do we not? Well, maybe, if we didn't see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5IuJGHuIkzY Wait, no, that guy made ACORN videos. Can't be trusted! Must be fake! But, umm, we've seen that lady before. At about 17:40 in this video, you see the same person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMzYaO2syE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMzYaO2syE You can even see a tiny mole on her chest in the same place. She's there, blocking the road and doing everything possible to delay the cops from clearing that out. But how do we know who she really works for? Well, what do you know, she's listed on the FEC website, they can tell us! (We can trust the FEC... right?) https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016 https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... Spender Recipient State Purpose Disbursement date Amount STAND UP FOR OHIO PAC RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ REIMBURSEMENT FOR T-SHIRT PRINTING 06-10-2016 $320.00 STAND UP FOR OHIO PAC RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ POLITICAL CONSULTING FEE 06-01-2016 $17,500.00 MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION ZULEMA RODRIGUEZ AZ TRAVEL EXP 05-24-2016 $1,108.97 MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ REIMBURSEMENT 05-24-2016 $1,108.97 HILLARY FOR AMERICA RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ PHONE 02-29-2016 $30.00 HILLARY FOR AMERICA RODRIGUEZ, ZULEMA AZ PAYROLL 02-29-2016 $1,610.24 In other news, she brags about her work at other protests where you may have seen pictures of a very injured cop. Lest we forget, remember that they also framed Sanders supporters for some of this stuff. Given that this violence was deliberate, do you also, based on that philosophic reasoning, support the same censure of anyone who supports Hillary? It would appear to be the logical conclusion to your argument given the campaign's deliberate violence, would it not? For the record, I find Trump a deplorable candidate. But the very idea that people would attempt to force us into a one party system by means of organized violence or excommunication from society won't sit well with many people. Especially not when it also appears that people are also herein advocating an action that appears to be flat-out illegal!
josh5555 10y ago
Do you believe that Islamic fundamentalists pose a threat? Their whole philosophy is quintessential intolerance. I suspect you are having a moment of cognitive dissonance. Nothing is as black and white as you proclaim.
smsm42 10y ago
The question is not who scores more imaginary points on John Stuart Mill's or anybody else's "liberality scale". They question is whether we want to have a community in which one has to constantly look over one's shoulder to not run afoul of the thought police, and where virtue signaling and participating in Two Minutes Hate becomes mandatory, or else. Programming and software community turning into this scares me much more than any presidential election could. > We are not required to tolerate intolerance when intolerance poses a threat to society. This is too easy. You just declare "this guy poses threat to society" and you don't have to play by the rules anymore.
- madmax96 10y ago
  This. Around 40% of Americans support Trump. Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself? You win over people with empathy and reasoned appeals to shared values, not firing them and refusing to associate at all with them -- that just drives them further away.
  - infosample 10y ago
    > Can you reasonably declare that 40% of society is a danger to itself? Yes. Has 40% been on the wrong side of slavery, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights? Has more progress been made through war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or empathy/reasoned appeals? There is a time for empathy, a time to ignore, and a time to fight. It's not a matter of percentage, it's a matter of wrong. Unfortunately, we don't usually have a consensus on what views are wrong until decades later.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      >Has more progress been made through war/assassinations/violence/riots/protest, or empathy/reasoned appeals? You can bully people into a resentful silence temporarily with war, assassinations, violence, riots, (angry) protests. But if you want to build something that lasts and doesn't require an army of policemen to keep it in power, you have to go with the empathy and reasoned appeals.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]