3 ms·

The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is

The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.

crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
I'd argue allowing some intolerance is required because no system is 100% anything. Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on. The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.
- jolux 10y ago
  Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.
  - crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
    This is a black and white interpretation. Here's your refutation: When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
    - jolux 10y ago
      Ok, but there is very clearly a boundary on acceptable behavior that we classify as not just "being yourself." How are you planning to draw that line? This isn't some unanswerable subjectivity we're talking about, and it's more a testament to the paucity of education in America that we can't recognize rational discussion from irrational anymore. For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
kazagistar 10y ago
No one says to be tolerant of everything. Don't be tolerant of intolerant public actions. But also don't be intolerant of private thoughts and actions.
stillhere 10y ago
I value free speech more than I value the system you're advocating. If "hate speech" is limited it becomes too easy to define anything you don't like as hate speech. Like Chronicles of Gor.
lgleason 10y ago
This is the same logic I used to hear friends, who were priests from the Catholic church, use to rationalize certain beliefs that were on the extreme right. In reality it's using philosophical doublespeak to rationalize a view that you believe. The mantra an tolerance and inclusion has become a religion with fundamentalists that exhibit the same hypocrisy that we've observed with other organized religions. Right now the fundamentalists are riding rough shot over many communities while a large majority of people are spiritual but not religious. Many personally reject fundamentalist interpretations of religion, including fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity, Diversity & Inclusion etc. but are spiritual in that they find good in many of the beliefs and goals. From what I've heard publicly and through the back channels this was a religious witch hunt. If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. In Drupal's case, it things were above board with this they would have been transparent.

The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.

crawfordcomeaux 10y ago

I'd argue allowing some intolerance is required because no system is 100% anything. Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on. The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.

jolux 10y ago
Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
  This is a black and white interpretation. Here's your refutation: When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
  - jolux 10y ago
    Ok, but there is very clearly a boundary on acceptable behavior that we classify as not just "being yourself." How are you planning to draw that line? This isn't some unanswerable subjectivity we're talking about, and it's more a testament to the paucity of education in America that we can't recognize rational discussion from irrational anymore. For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

kazagistar 10y ago

No one says to be tolerant of everything. Don't be tolerant of intolerant public actions. But also don't be intolerant of private thoughts and actions.

stillhere 10y ago

I value free speech more than I value the system you're advocating. If "hate speech" is limited it becomes too easy to define anything you don't like as hate speech. Like Chronicles of Gor.

lgleason 10y ago

This is the same logic I used to hear friends, who were priests from the Catholic church, use to rationalize certain beliefs that were on the extreme right. In reality it's using philosophical doublespeak to rationalize a view that you believe. The mantra an tolerance and inclusion has become a religion with fundamentalists that exhibit the same hypocrisy that we've observed with other organized religions. Right now the fundamentalists are riding rough shot over many communities while a large majority of people are spiritual but not religious. Many personally reject fundamentalist interpretations of religion, including fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity, Diversity & Inclusion etc. but are spiritual in that they find good in many of the beliefs and goals. From what I've heard publicly and through the back channels this was a religious witch hunt. If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. In Drupal's case, it things were above board with this they would have been transparent.