7 ms·

"The right thing". Tolerance means recognizing that people have different world views than your own. Sometimes the people you do business with have political o

"The right thing". Tolerance means recognizing that people have different world views than your own. Sometimes the people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with. The melodrama over Thiel's political opinions is pointless. If you demand Thiel steps down, are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently? Personally I lean liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with all the theatrics I've seen in this election from the left. The Trump phenomenon arguably occurred because half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington in the form of donald trump. Maybe we should all get to understand our neighbors instead of doubling down on us-vs-them tribalism.

ben0x539 10y ago
Nah, tolerance means that you gotta be ok with people from different religions, ethnic groups, w/e. The opinion thing isn't as important.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  It's only tolerance when I agree with you /s "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
- olioli 10y ago
  The guys who wrote the universal declaration of human rights seem to disagree with you. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    Yeah I'm not saying people with abhorrent opinions don't deserve human rights. That doesn't mean tolerance is all about being cool with your hypothetical Nazi neighbor. I'm pretty sure whoever came up with that declaration would be with me on the part where we aren't cool w/ Nazis.
    - white-flame 10y ago
      Tolerance would still mean that if Nazi neighbor needs help with his lawnmower, that you don't have a problem giving him a hand. Don't throw away people's humanity because of one aspect you don't like about them. Even if they're your enemy. Seriously, differences are being treated like kindergarten cooties here. You don't catch Naziism by being civil to your neighbor, and we need civility overall. But here's a problem: Everybody is labeling everybody else as effectively Nazis for any minor or major difference, thus justifying all civility being withdrawn. Plus, people can change.
      - eropple 10y ago
        No and never. Tolerance means I don't shoot him for being a Nazi, even if I would like to. I can earnestly hope his lawnmower takes off a hand and that his cholesterol levels are none too good, and I remain tolerant of him. Toleration has nothing to do with being nice, it has to do with a recognition of legal status and human rights. Fuck your hypothetical Nazi and fuck his lawnmower. What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true.
        white-flame 10y ago
        If you replace "Nazi" with another word starting with N, you sound like a person from not too long ago talking about legal status and human rights as well. This has nothing to do with Nazis, it's a question of principle. Principles don't special case particular targets, they either stand or not. Substituting a different target certainly makes you sound like those you're railing against in the first place. Nazis are just an easy target. > What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true. This is the root of the polarization that is tearing everything apart. The only life you'd be happy to live is one where you're only surrounded by those who are not "politically" divergent from you? Politicizing everything puts you at a fundamentalist war with everything. This is demonstrably anti-freedom, and intolerance of the existence of differences. Sure, you can promote destroying differences that you don't like (I was going to say "political differences", but that's moot according to your outlook of all differences being political), but you're really speaking against fundamental tenets of western society so it becomes functionally moot.
ubernostrum 10y ago
Serious question: is there any action he could take, any line he could cross, literally anything he could do or say that would ever, in your mind, be sufficient to justify refusing to associate with him?
- rayiner 10y ago
  He could have voted for a war (that more than a fifth of the Senate opposed) that cost trillions of dollars and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    But... that would mean you'd disassociate from Hillary Clinton. Over political views. Gasp! Shock! Clutch my pearls and fetch the smelling salts! How dare you be so intolerant as to suggest someone should be ostracized over mere expression of a political opinion!
    - rayiner 10y ago
      When the U.S. went to Iraq, I had a political opinion. HRC had a choice.
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        Here's a hint: this is exactly how many people feel about Thiel, Trump, and what's expected from the Trump administration.
        rayiner 10y ago
        My point is that if voting for the Iraq war can be forgiven, anything can be forgiven.
        ubernostrum 10y ago
        But this is HN. You're never allowed to disassociate from anyone over a "political opinion". That makes you a bullying fascist bully who bullies people with bullying fascism.
Frondo 10y ago
Tolerance means you aren't jailing people with different views than your own. Tolerance means you aren't out beating people up for having different views. Tolerance isn't about putting on a happy face and doing business with someone whose views you find odious. If people are no longer free to use words or social stigma to advance their views and opinion, because "tolerance," then what do we have left?
- Sniffnoy 10y ago
  Why the implicit equation of "words" with "shouting at people that they're bad"? (Or at least, that's how I'm reading your comment based on the context.) The alternative is actual argument rather than punishment, something overgard in no way ruled out. ...which unfortunately may not be a great tool given the current situation. I think we are at the point where playing nice may no longer be a serious option. But that doesn't mean we should just, lke, punish all the bad people because they're bad people. That still isn't helpful. It just feels good, it doesn't necessarily accomplish anything. In the particular case of people joining the Trump administration, I think Megan McArdle makes a good case against punishing capable people for joining it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/there-s-no-shame-in-joining-the-trump-administration https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/there-s-n... Still. We're in a situation now where argument is unlikely to get us anywhere -- but in better times, that's the ideal, not using words to punish people.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Letting people get away with harmful practices is a bad idea. Extending that from theft to politics is a very reasonable thing to do. People prentend that politics is a purely abstract thing, but consider. Bush is directly responsible for well over 500,000 deaths. The blood of his victims is directly on the hands of everyone that voted for the idiot. Trump might not be as bad or he might start WWIII.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Also, there is the fact that Trump isn't Pinochet. At this stage, he's not even Bill Clinton (pushed the party hard to the right, locked up hundreds of thousands of poor black people to court skittish suburbanites). He'll get there but he's a pure virgin soul compared to pretty much any modern President besides Carter.
kyleblarson 10y ago
The 'brick through the window' analogy is one of the most apt I've heard so far given the increasingly violent tendency of 'protesters' in this country.
- couchand 10y ago
  The phrase "increasingly violent" can only possibly be accurate here on an incredibly short time scale.
revelation 10y ago
There is tolerance and then there are things that are not open to discussion. The line tends to shift as society progresses. Not so long ago it was a perfectly valid opinion that there should be slaves. Try that today. (Incidentally that same level of society would have seen Thiel stoned to death, he is openly gay after all)
- grzm 10y ago
  How does this work in practice? This is something I've been thinking about and am struggling with. What if people don't agree with you and feel the same way about things not being open to discussion? Compromise? Split off into smaller and smaller groups that agree with each other? Refuse to work together? Shun? Shame? Resort to violence? I'm serious. I don't have a good answer. I think it depends on the issue, but I know people are going to draw their lines differently. Thoughts?
  - revelation 10y ago
    I think in practice you might be Brendan Eich, donate to an anti same-sex marriage PAC, find that your work community does not feel gay marriage should be open to discussion and are out of a job as CEO of Mozilla.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Ok. Would you clarify who the "you" refers to? I'm not sure if you're referring to me, Peter Thiel, or some general person who doesn't hold the same views as you.
      - revelation 10y ago
        Well, Brendan Eich. It's more of a literary device. Sorry, I might have misunderstood your question? I merely wanted to give an example of what happens when there is a shift of the line and some people haven't caught up.
        10y ago
pdkl95 10y ago
> people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with Yes, they do. However, opinions and material support are different things. > are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently? Expressing your opinion with a vote and funding a campaign with >$1M are not anywhere close to equivalent. > half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington That's exactly what happened, as expected[1]. Unfortunately, most people were more interested in playing political games or blaming their favorite scapegoat. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE
smogcutter 10y ago
In other words, shut up and get along.
yolesaber 10y ago
You're right, we should tolerate someone who wants to literally register all Muslims in a database. You lean liberal? What?

ben0x539 10y ago

Nah, tolerance means that you gotta be ok with people from different religions, ethnic groups, w/e. The opinion thing isn't as important.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
It's only tolerance when I agree with you /s "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
olioli 10y ago
The guys who wrote the universal declaration of human rights seem to disagree with you. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
- ben0x539 10y ago
  Yeah I'm not saying people with abhorrent opinions don't deserve human rights. That doesn't mean tolerance is all about being cool with your hypothetical Nazi neighbor. I'm pretty sure whoever came up with that declaration would be with me on the part where we aren't cool w/ Nazis.
  - white-flame 10y ago
    Tolerance would still mean that if Nazi neighbor needs help with his lawnmower, that you don't have a problem giving him a hand. Don't throw away people's humanity because of one aspect you don't like about them. Even if they're your enemy. Seriously, differences are being treated like kindergarten cooties here. You don't catch Naziism by being civil to your neighbor, and we need civility overall. But here's a problem: Everybody is labeling everybody else as effectively Nazis for any minor or major difference, thus justifying all civility being withdrawn. Plus, people can change.
    - eropple 10y ago
      No and never. Tolerance means I don't shoot him for being a Nazi, even if I would like to. I can earnestly hope his lawnmower takes off a hand and that his cholesterol levels are none too good, and I remain tolerant of him. Toleration has nothing to do with being nice, it has to do with a recognition of legal status and human rights. Fuck your hypothetical Nazi and fuck his lawnmower. What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true.
      - white-flame 10y ago
        If you replace "Nazi" with another word starting with N, you sound like a person from not too long ago talking about legal status and human rights as well. This has nothing to do with Nazis, it's a question of principle. Principles don't special case particular targets, they either stand or not. Substituting a different target certainly makes you sound like those you're railing against in the first place. Nazis are just an easy target. > What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true. This is the root of the polarization that is tearing everything apart. The only life you'd be happy to live is one where you're only surrounded by those who are not "politically" divergent from you? Politicizing everything puts you at a fundamentalist war with everything. This is demonstrably anti-freedom, and intolerance of the existence of differences. Sure, you can promote destroying differences that you don't like (I was going to say "political differences", but that's moot according to your outlook of all differences being political), but you're really speaking against fundamental tenets of western society so it becomes functionally moot.

ubernostrum 10y ago

Serious question: is there any action he could take, any line he could cross, literally anything he could do or say that would ever, in your mind, be sufficient to justify refusing to associate with him?

rayiner 10y ago
He could have voted for a war (that more than a fifth of the Senate opposed) that cost trillions of dollars and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  But... that would mean you'd disassociate from Hillary Clinton. Over political views. Gasp! Shock! Clutch my pearls and fetch the smelling salts! How dare you be so intolerant as to suggest someone should be ostracized over mere expression of a political opinion!
  - rayiner 10y ago
    When the U.S. went to Iraq, I had a political opinion. HRC had a choice.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Here's a hint: this is exactly how many people feel about Thiel, Trump, and what's expected from the Trump administration.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        My point is that if voting for the Iraq war can be forgiven, anything can be forgiven.
        ubernostrum 10y ago
        But this is HN. You're never allowed to disassociate from anyone over a "political opinion". That makes you a bullying fascist bully who bullies people with bullying fascism.

Frondo 10y ago

Tolerance means you aren't jailing people with different views than your own. Tolerance means you aren't out beating people up for having different views. Tolerance isn't about putting on a happy face and doing business with someone whose views you find odious. If people are no longer free to use words or social stigma to advance their views and opinion, because "tolerance," then what do we have left?

Sniffnoy 10y ago
Why the implicit equation of "words" with "shouting at people that they're bad"? (Or at least, that's how I'm reading your comment based on the context.) The alternative is actual argument rather than punishment, something overgard in no way ruled out. ...which unfortunately may not be a great tool given the current situation. I think we are at the point where playing nice may no longer be a serious option. But that doesn't mean we should just, lke, punish all the bad people because they're bad people. That still isn't helpful. It just feels good, it doesn't necessarily accomplish anything. In the particular case of people joining the Trump administration, I think Megan McArdle makes a good case against punishing capable people for joining it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/there-s-no-shame-in-joining-the-trump-administration https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/there-s-n... Still. We're in a situation now where argument is unlikely to get us anywhere -- but in better times, that's the ideal, not using words to punish people.
- Retric 10y ago
  Letting people get away with harmful practices is a bad idea. Extending that from theft to politics is a very reasonable thing to do. People prentend that politics is a purely abstract thing, but consider. Bush is directly responsible for well over 500,000 deaths. The blood of his victims is directly on the hands of everyone that voted for the idiot. Trump might not be as bad or he might start WWIII.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Also, there is the fact that Trump isn't Pinochet. At this stage, he's not even Bill Clinton (pushed the party hard to the right, locked up hundreds of thousands of poor black people to court skittish suburbanites). He'll get there but he's a pure virgin soul compared to pretty much any modern President besides Carter.

kyleblarson 10y ago

The 'brick through the window' analogy is one of the most apt I've heard so far given the increasingly violent tendency of 'protesters' in this country.

couchand 10y ago
The phrase "increasingly violent" can only possibly be accurate here on an incredibly short time scale.

revelation 10y ago

There is tolerance and then there are things that are not open to discussion. The line tends to shift as society progresses. Not so long ago it was a perfectly valid opinion that there should be slaves. Try that today. (Incidentally that same level of society would have seen Thiel stoned to death, he is openly gay after all)

grzm 10y ago
How does this work in practice? This is something I've been thinking about and am struggling with. What if people don't agree with you and feel the same way about things not being open to discussion? Compromise? Split off into smaller and smaller groups that agree with each other? Refuse to work together? Shun? Shame? Resort to violence? I'm serious. I don't have a good answer. I think it depends on the issue, but I know people are going to draw their lines differently. Thoughts?
- revelation 10y ago
  I think in practice you might be Brendan Eich, donate to an anti same-sex marriage PAC, find that your work community does not feel gay marriage should be open to discussion and are out of a job as CEO of Mozilla.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Ok. Would you clarify who the "you" refers to? I'm not sure if you're referring to me, Peter Thiel, or some general person who doesn't hold the same views as you.
    - revelation 10y ago
      Well, Brendan Eich. It's more of a literary device. Sorry, I might have misunderstood your question? I merely wanted to give an example of what happens when there is a shift of the line and some people haven't caught up.
      - 10y ago

pdkl95 10y ago

> people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with Yes, they do. However, opinions and material support are different things. > are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently? Expressing your opinion with a vote and funding a campaign with >$1M are not anywhere close to equivalent. > half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington That's exactly what happened, as expected[1]. Unfortunately, most people were more interested in playing political games or blaming their favorite scapegoat. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE

smogcutter 10y ago

In other words, shut up and get along.

yolesaber 10y ago

You're right, we should tolerate someone who wants to literally register all Muslims in a database. You lean liberal? What?