3 ms·

Totally agree. I'm fed up of the argument that goes "if you preach tolerance, you must be tolerant of intolerance", for my own understanding of tolerance. Yes,

Totally agree. I'm fed up of the argument that goes "if you preach tolerance, you must be tolerant of intolerance", for my own understanding of tolerance. Yes, you shouldn't commit a violent act against someone because they are intolerant. No, you shouldn't have to accept their intolerance unreservedly. I also have an issue with the part of the statement that reads along the lines of "we are against discrimination based on someone's race, gender ... or personal beliefs". Sorry, that's ridiculous. If someone believes Jews are parasites, I'm discriminating against them. If someone thinks women are inherently inferior to men, I'm discriminating against them. If I'm not allowed to react differently to someone because of what they believe in, go ahead and unplug me now because i cease to be a thinking human being.

nebabyte 10y ago
So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society? Do you shun them, throw slurs at them? What happens when one moves in to be your next-door neighbor? Do you try moving to places without them? Intolerance of beliefs is incompatible with society, and society has shown no signs of changing. How would your solution address that? Indoctrination? Building an ideological "wall"? Killing those who do not meet your ideology, or wait and hope it 'dies out'? What happens when they elect someone with such beliefs to lead you?
- oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
  > So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society Challenge those beliefs. I believe i shouldn't be forced to tolerate them, though.
- therpe1 10y ago
  > So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society? Do you shun them, throw slurs at them? What happens when one moves in to be your next-door neighbor? Do you try moving to places without them? Pretty much all of the above. Americans get confused about the qualities of different "spaces." It's like the US is all one big "public space" except for private land where you can murder intruders with impunity. In reality, different spaces demand different politics. Public spaces are in fact very special -- by definition, everybody must be accepted as long as they're not breaking the law. Try to eject somebody from a public space for their beliefs and it's you, not them, who will end up in jail. See the Trump protestors. Open-source projects aren't like that. They're essentially private associations that, in reality, receive zero public support and they don't even pay most of their members. It's literally a collection of volunteers and amateurs. And here the members absolutely do possess the right to eject anybody for any reason. It's not "fair" but fairness is not a concept that applies to such spaces.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society? Do you shun them, throw slurs at them? What happens when one moves in to be your next-door neighbor? Do you try moving to places without them? As long as they do not impede on my or anyone else Freedom's, it's fine for them to have their own beliefs about the world or whatever. Why should we ALL have the same beliefs anyway? > Intolerance of beliefs is incompatible with society, and society has shown no signs of changing. Sorry but society as a whole has NEVER collapsed no matter how many disharmonies there are or were amongst us - even civil wars do not bring down entire societies. There's a lot more harm to be done by putting limits on how people should think, and this kind of line of thought is actually what leads to conflict more often than not. > What happens when they elect someone with such beliefs to lead you? So what? Leaders who do not represent folks have been elected for centuries already, it's hardly something new. You know, live with it.
stillhere 10y ago
Who decides what is intolerant? Free speech becomes more limited over time as the definition changes to anything which hurts someones feelings for example. Or, in this case, ascribes to BDSM and fantasy lifestyle. You are the thought police.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
  > You are the thought police. Not at all. Anyone is totally free to believe whatever they like, I'm not suggesting making certain beliefs illegal. What I'm saying is that, if i run an open-source project, i should be free to work with whoever i want, based on their beliefs. Not based on the person they were when they born, but the person they have chosen to be. If that person happens to be a white-supremacist or advocates euthenising the disabled or promotes paedophilia, i will probably choose to not work with them, and i think i should have that right.
  - stillhere 10y ago
    So anyone is free to believe whatever they like but if they'd like to join your organization they better shut up about it if they don't think the way you do? In effect you are policing thought.

nebabyte 10y ago

So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society? Do you shun them, throw slurs at them? What happens when one moves in to be your next-door neighbor? Do you try moving to places without them? Intolerance of beliefs is incompatible with society, and society has shown no signs of changing. How would your solution address that? Indoctrination? Building an ideological "wall"? Killing those who do not meet your ideology, or wait and hope it 'dies out'? What happens when they elect someone with such beliefs to lead you?

oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
> So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society Challenge those beliefs. I believe i shouldn't be forced to tolerate them, though.
therpe1 10y ago
> So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society? Do you shun them, throw slurs at them? What happens when one moves in to be your next-door neighbor? Do you try moving to places without them? Pretty much all of the above. Americans get confused about the qualities of different "spaces." It's like the US is all one big "public space" except for private land where you can murder intruders with impunity. In reality, different spaces demand different politics. Public spaces are in fact very special -- by definition, everybody must be accepted as long as they're not breaking the law. Try to eject somebody from a public space for their beliefs and it's you, not them, who will end up in jail. See the Trump protestors. Open-source projects aren't like that. They're essentially private associations that, in reality, receive zero public support and they don't even pay most of their members. It's literally a collection of volunteers and amateurs. And here the members absolutely do possess the right to eject anybody for any reason. It's not "fair" but fairness is not a concept that applies to such spaces.
ekianjo 10y ago
> So then how do you deal with people with such beliefs in your society? Do you shun them, throw slurs at them? What happens when one moves in to be your next-door neighbor? Do you try moving to places without them? As long as they do not impede on my or anyone else Freedom's, it's fine for them to have their own beliefs about the world or whatever. Why should we ALL have the same beliefs anyway? > Intolerance of beliefs is incompatible with society, and society has shown no signs of changing. Sorry but society as a whole has NEVER collapsed no matter how many disharmonies there are or were amongst us - even civil wars do not bring down entire societies. There's a lot more harm to be done by putting limits on how people should think, and this kind of line of thought is actually what leads to conflict more often than not. > What happens when they elect someone with such beliefs to lead you? So what? Leaders who do not represent folks have been elected for centuries already, it's hardly something new. You know, live with it.

stillhere 10y ago

Who decides what is intolerant? Free speech becomes more limited over time as the definition changes to anything which hurts someones feelings for example. Or, in this case, ascribes to BDSM and fantasy lifestyle. You are the thought police.

oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
> You are the thought police. Not at all. Anyone is totally free to believe whatever they like, I'm not suggesting making certain beliefs illegal. What I'm saying is that, if i run an open-source project, i should be free to work with whoever i want, based on their beliefs. Not based on the person they were when they born, but the person they have chosen to be. If that person happens to be a white-supremacist or advocates euthenising the disabled or promotes paedophilia, i will probably choose to not work with them, and i think i should have that right.
- stillhere 10y ago
  So anyone is free to believe whatever they like but if they'd like to join your organization they better shut up about it if they don't think the way you do? In effect you are policing thought.