4 ms·

If everyone cherrypicks what they're going to be tolerant of, and declares people expressing ideas that they don't like to be violence, worthy of punching someo

If everyone cherrypicks what they're going to be tolerant of, and declares people expressing ideas that they don't like to be violence, worthy of punching someone in the face, we're in for a bad time. Now is the time to amp up the tolerance, and be willing to give before you get. Almost everyone is capable of putting their various differences aside in a professional environment and get shit done. Honestly it seems like Google is going to have to add a violence component to their training: "It is never OK to punch someone in the face because of something they said."

lliamander 9y ago
Indeed. I agree with the OP's definition of tolerance, and provisionally with the idea that uncivil behavior should be punished, but people definitely need to get some perspective when it comes to deciding what constitutes a violation of the peace. Something I said about that previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571404
leereeves 9y ago
> declares people expressing ideas that they don't like to be violence, worthy of punching someone in the face While we're considering that, it's worthing noting that the author did exactly that, writing about James Damore: > a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face Should we accept lessons in tolerance from someone who appears to think violence is justified if someone holds a different opinion?
- lliamander 9y ago
  >Should we accept lessons in tolerance from someone who appears to think violence is justified if someone holds a different opinion? Yes, if their argument is sound. Edit: of course, we may still ask if they are living up to such standards as they set for others.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    I suspect Yonatan Zunger would argue that James Damore broke the peace by writing something that hurt people. (Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in that case; a hurtful truth is still hurtful.) That would be my first objection to this theory. If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response, as a diplomatic insult might lead to a shooting war.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      > If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response Certainly some will act that way, but I don't think it necessarily follows. The definition he provides of tolerance rather matches my own intuition when it comes to the mundane form of "tolerance" that neighbors show to one another when putting up with each others quirks. But in any case, my point is that Zunger's character is irrelevant to whether any particular idea he happens to espouse is good or not. We must judge the idea on its own merits. To judge the idea based on what we think of Zunger himself is to engage in an fallacy.
StavrosK 9y ago
This is a very good article that goes into detail on what you mention: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

lliamander 9y ago

Indeed. I agree with the OP's definition of tolerance, and provisionally with the idea that uncivil behavior should be punished, but people definitely need to get some perspective when it comes to deciding what constitutes a violation of the peace. Something I said about that previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571404

leereeves 9y ago

> declares people expressing ideas that they don't like to be violence, worthy of punching someone in the face While we're considering that, it's worthing noting that the author did exactly that, writing about James Damore: > a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face Should we accept lessons in tolerance from someone who appears to think violence is justified if someone holds a different opinion?

lliamander 9y ago
>Should we accept lessons in tolerance from someone who appears to think violence is justified if someone holds a different opinion? Yes, if their argument is sound. Edit: of course, we may still ask if they are living up to such standards as they set for others.
- leereeves 9y ago
  I suspect Yonatan Zunger would argue that James Damore broke the peace by writing something that hurt people. (Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in that case; a hurtful truth is still hurtful.) That would be my first objection to this theory. If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response, as a diplomatic insult might lead to a shooting war.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    > If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response Certainly some will act that way, but I don't think it necessarily follows. The definition he provides of tolerance rather matches my own intuition when it comes to the mundane form of "tolerance" that neighbors show to one another when putting up with each others quirks. But in any case, my point is that Zunger's character is irrelevant to whether any particular idea he happens to espouse is good or not. We must judge the idea on its own merits. To judge the idea based on what we think of Zunger himself is to engage in an fallacy.

StavrosK 9y ago

This is a very good article that goes into detail on what you mention: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...