3 ms·

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

by 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is labeling everybody else as effectively Nazis for any minor or major difference, thus justifying all civility being withdrawn.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.
      - ben0x539 10y ago
        Yes, if you replace the core of an argument with an abstruse strawman, it's a different, worse argument. That isn't particularly convincing. Equating ethnic identity with a genocidal ideology is kinda fucked up, though.
        white-flame 10y ago
        The flip was equating it to perpetrating a genocidal ideology, with the same argument as used in lashing out against its perpetrators, because that's exactly the same stuff that's going through a genocidal maniac's head (or at least coming out of their mouths). But all my points stand. It's too easy to label somebody a Nazi (or whatever label enables you), eliminate all civility and humanity from them, wish them nothing but death, and consider yourself righteous and tolerant for it. It is better to err on the side of treating bad people with more respect than they deserve, than to err on the side of treating decent people with more hate than they deserve. Because your judgment of how bad or decent they are is at the very best based on incomplete information in the first place. Erring on the side of hate directly makes the world a worse place, and erring on the side of respect makes the world a more civil place.
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    I'm not throwing away the humanity of Nazis. I'm acknowledging that their goal in life is to eradicate me and people like me, and that anything I can do to slow them down might save a life at some point. Time spent fixing the lawnmower is spent not agitating to have people tortured. Tolerating certain politics as just "differences" in opinion is a luxury for people for whom politics are an intellectual exercise and maybe impact their bank statement at the end of the year, it's not affordable for those for whom it's a question of survival.

by olioli 10y ago

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.
    - ben0x539 10y ago
      Yes, if you replace the core of an argument with an abstruse strawman, it's a different, worse argument. That isn't particularly convincing. Equating ethnic identity with a genocidal ideology is kinda fucked up, though.
      - white-flame 10y ago
        The flip was equating it to perpetrating a genocidal ideology, with the same argument as used in lashing out against its perpetrators, because that's exactly the same stuff that's going through a genocidal maniac's head (or at least coming out of their mouths). But all my points stand. It's too easy to label somebody a Nazi (or whatever label enables you), eliminate all civility and humanity from them, wish them nothing but death, and consider yourself righteous and tolerant for it. It is better to err on the side of treating bad people with more respect than they deserve, than to err on the side of treating decent people with more hate than they deserve. Because your judgment of how bad or decent they are is at the very best based on incomplete information in the first place. Erring on the side of hate directly makes the world a worse place, and erring on the side of respect makes the world a more civil place.
- ben0x539 10y ago
  I'm not throwing away the humanity of Nazis. I'm acknowledging that their goal in life is to eradicate me and people like me, and that anything I can do to slow them down might save a life at some point. Time spent fixing the lawnmower is spent not agitating to have people tortured. Tolerating certain politics as just "differences" in opinion is a luxury for people for whom politics are an intellectual exercise and maybe impact their bank statement at the end of the year, it's not affordable for those for whom it's a question of survival.