6 ms·

Still disagree vehemently. One "brilliant jerk" who isn't shy about saying that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "Jews kill and eat babies" or "all musli

Still disagree vehemently. One "brilliant jerk" who isn't shy about saying that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "Jews kill and eat babies" or "all muslims are terrorists and we shouldn't allow them in the country" in an environment that is tolerant to his views can make an environment hostile for 50 non-jerks whom you'll never have a chance to discover are brilliant. If you try to tell me I have an obligation for the sake of "progress" to tolerate people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about, I will laugh in your face and ask you (politely, the first time) to get out of my place of work.

dwaltrip 9y ago
You chose easy examples. What about the harder ones?
- fao_ 9y ago
  You obviously have some in mind, how about suggesting them?
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    I actually don't have any in mind. I just find it less helpful to focus on the easier examples. In general, I'm more interested in the underlying dynamics, as well as the processes we use to determine what is morally acceptable or not. I think that looking at the more complex issues and at the ways in which the different viewpoints evolve over time shines more light on these important fundamental aspects.
  - pdpi 9y ago
    A really popular (or rather unpopular) one is that women and men are differently capable. Even with all the caveats in the world (that different means neither better nor worse, that this doesn’t make hiring or salary discrimination ok, etc etc), you’re likely to get in trouble because of it.
    - backpropaganda 9y ago
      This is pretty much the perfect example of what is considered wrongthink today, but I have confidence, will be common knowledge in 50 years. This is the example people should be using more instead of the one Altman used (disparaging comments about gay people).
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - perfmode 9y ago
      So here’s the truth as far as I see it: Yes. Women and men are differently capable. However, there are many ways in which we traditionally believed them to be differently capable that were actually that way due to discrimination and injustice. So, people will be rightly annoyed when someone tries to downplay the effects of systemic injustice. When we have fixed our systems to be more just and inclusive, only then can we begin to talk about inherent difference. Until then, it is not urgent. Justice first.
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        > When we have fixed our systems to be more just and inclusive, only then [...] This is not something that ever finishes. I think we have to allow both to happen side by side, constantly struggling to balance them as best we can.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    Any critique of Islam.
whatshisface 9y ago
Who decides what voices should be silent?
- fao_ 9y ago
  Voices that call for repression of rights for certain parties should be silenced. Gay people are a subset of people who have been harassed because of something that a) they cannot control, b) harms nobody (As long as it is between two consenting adults, but that's the same for heterosexual relations). Fascists are a subset of people who have been harassed because a) they call for non-whites to be exterminated, b) previous fascist movements have put into practice that goal. The difference is: If I speak about death to gay people, historically this has led to gay people dying -- even if a gay person sat still, they would be attacked. If I speak about death to fascists, historically this has led to fascists dying -- but only after they have mobilized to take power andor spread their beliefs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which voices should be silent. That is, if one values equality among fellow humans, and keeps a gentle eye on history.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - BurningFrog 9y ago
    This does not answer the "who" question.
  - leroy_masochist 9y ago
    So, fascists should not be allowed the privilege of free speech? This gets kind of dicey to implement in a place like SF, where it seems like half the people my age think that all registered Republicans are, ipso facto, literally fascists.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    Show me a committee of people who you think should be trusted to decide what speech is not allowed. And I will show you a group of fallen men, like the rest of us, who will abuse their power for political gain. And where do you draw the line? Maybe you could get everyone to agree on "kill all gays" being irredeemably intolerant. But what about conservatives who think that children benefit from having a mother and a father and so believe that only adoption by married heterosexual couples should be allowed[1]? According to you, is that just wrong or is it worthy of censorship? And what of the many religions who believe that wives should obey their husbands? And what of discussions of multiculturalism and its potential threats to social cohesion? You give only easy examples, but the trouble is never with the easy examples. [1] And the for the record, I'm in favor of allowing adoption by gay couples.
abnry 9y ago
Advocacy =/= Violence. This is one of the worst ideas of our century, that the words themselves cause injury akin to bodily harm. There should be a power struggle at the implementation level of ideas. This is where violence may or may not actually occur. But the advocacy level is below that. Certain ideas may make you uncomfortable, you may fear they will be implemented, but they are still only words. The point of the article still stands: If you rigidly restrict what is okay and what is not okay to say, you risk actually valid countercultural views ever making it to the implementation level.
- TillE 9y ago
  Advocating genocide is violence, I think most people would agree. Talking about "ideas" is so abstract and antiseptic; clearly there are things beyond the pale.
  - brandonbloom 9y ago
    Please ignore the overly literal pendants who can’t be bothered to look past the word “physical” in the first of several dictionary entries defining the word “violence”. Words can cause harm, and whether you call it violent or not doesn’t make it any more morally justifiable.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      I think you’re being uncharitable in the reason why myself and others are disagreeing that advocation of violence is necessarily violence. This is a problem of definitions, but not the way you’ve said: in the common case, using the word “violence” denotes a sort of harm that is not equitable with the negative effects of advocating for violence. This is important because of accountability and nuance. If I advocate for war, it is unreasonable to try to invalidate my position by claiming that I should volunteer to go to war. You can incorporate that into your argument, but it does not on its own invalidate my argument. Similarly, my advocation of violence is not violence itself, despite how violent all war must necessarily be. This is a matter of using the right methods of investigation and persuasion; you might end up at the rational conclusion using an irrational method, but that method will insidiously steer you wrong elsewhere. It is important to be able to posit advocation of an idea is wrong according to some set of moral axioms without trying to posit the much stronger (and untenable) stance that advocation of violence is itself violence. Rational methods of investigation generalize, and irrational ones do not.
dsacco 9y ago
So you established a “Socratic baseline”, so to speak. You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity. Now can you tell me what amount of difference in views you are willing to tolerate for the sake of working with someone brilliant and productive? If you eat meat and one of the most accomplished physicists in the world is militantly opposed to eating meat, would you work with them? What if they refuse to eat lunch with you if you eat meat? What if their views on abortion are diametrically opposed to yours, and they actively vote against your ideals? What if they believe all human beings with mental defects should be aborted in the womb? In other words, I want you to haggle with your position a bit so I can understand how you react in the more real world scenario, in which an otherwise useful individual’s views are very different, but not cartoonishly different from your own.
- charonn0 9y ago
  > You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity. What they actually said was "people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about"
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Yes, they are intolerant of those people, regardless of how useful they can otherwise be to society. I think we both understand what the parent was saying, and it seems pretty reasonable to me.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Are you so incapable of taking an individual situation on it's merits that you can't even handle to possibility that others might not have set in stone rules or mathematically model-able behaviors? Yes situational ethics is messy, no they are not invalid because they are messy.
  - dsacco 9y ago

dwaltrip 9y ago

You chose easy examples. What about the harder ones?

fao_ 9y ago
You obviously have some in mind, how about suggesting them?
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  I actually don't have any in mind. I just find it less helpful to focus on the easier examples. In general, I'm more interested in the underlying dynamics, as well as the processes we use to determine what is morally acceptable or not. I think that looking at the more complex issues and at the ways in which the different viewpoints evolve over time shines more light on these important fundamental aspects.
- pdpi 9y ago
  A really popular (or rather unpopular) one is that women and men are differently capable. Even with all the caveats in the world (that different means neither better nor worse, that this doesn’t make hiring or salary discrimination ok, etc etc), you’re likely to get in trouble because of it.
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    This is pretty much the perfect example of what is considered wrongthink today, but I have confidence, will be common knowledge in 50 years. This is the example people should be using more instead of the one Altman used (disparaging comments about gay people).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - perfmode 9y ago
    So here’s the truth as far as I see it: Yes. Women and men are differently capable. However, there are many ways in which we traditionally believed them to be differently capable that were actually that way due to discrimination and injustice. So, people will be rightly annoyed when someone tries to downplay the effects of systemic injustice. When we have fixed our systems to be more just and inclusive, only then can we begin to talk about inherent difference. Until then, it is not urgent. Justice first.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      > When we have fixed our systems to be more just and inclusive, only then [...] This is not something that ever finishes. I think we have to allow both to happen side by side, constantly struggling to balance them as best we can.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Any critique of Islam.

whatshisface 9y ago

Who decides what voices should be silent?

fao_ 9y ago
Voices that call for repression of rights for certain parties should be silenced. Gay people are a subset of people who have been harassed because of something that a) they cannot control, b) harms nobody (As long as it is between two consenting adults, but that's the same for heterosexual relations). Fascists are a subset of people who have been harassed because a) they call for non-whites to be exterminated, b) previous fascist movements have put into practice that goal. The difference is: If I speak about death to gay people, historically this has led to gay people dying -- even if a gay person sat still, they would be attacked. If I speak about death to fascists, historically this has led to fascists dying -- but only after they have mobilized to take power andor spread their beliefs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which voices should be silent. That is, if one values equality among fellow humans, and keeps a gentle eye on history.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  This does not answer the "who" question.
- leroy_masochist 9y ago
  So, fascists should not be allowed the privilege of free speech? This gets kind of dicey to implement in a place like SF, where it seems like half the people my age think that all registered Republicans are, ipso facto, literally fascists.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Show me a committee of people who you think should be trusted to decide what speech is not allowed. And I will show you a group of fallen men, like the rest of us, who will abuse their power for political gain. And where do you draw the line? Maybe you could get everyone to agree on "kill all gays" being irredeemably intolerant. But what about conservatives who think that children benefit from having a mother and a father and so believe that only adoption by married heterosexual couples should be allowed[1]? According to you, is that just wrong or is it worthy of censorship? And what of the many religions who believe that wives should obey their husbands? And what of discussions of multiculturalism and its potential threats to social cohesion? You give only easy examples, but the trouble is never with the easy examples. [1] And the for the record, I'm in favor of allowing adoption by gay couples.

abnry 9y ago

Advocacy =/= Violence. This is one of the worst ideas of our century, that the words themselves cause injury akin to bodily harm. There should be a power struggle at the implementation level of ideas. This is where violence may or may not actually occur. But the advocacy level is below that. Certain ideas may make you uncomfortable, you may fear they will be implemented, but they are still only words. The point of the article still stands: If you rigidly restrict what is okay and what is not okay to say, you risk actually valid countercultural views ever making it to the implementation level.

TillE 9y ago
Advocating genocide is violence, I think most people would agree. Talking about "ideas" is so abstract and antiseptic; clearly there are things beyond the pale.
- brandonbloom 9y ago
  Please ignore the overly literal pendants who can’t be bothered to look past the word “physical” in the first of several dictionary entries defining the word “violence”. Words can cause harm, and whether you call it violent or not doesn’t make it any more morally justifiable.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    I think you’re being uncharitable in the reason why myself and others are disagreeing that advocation of violence is necessarily violence. This is a problem of definitions, but not the way you’ve said: in the common case, using the word “violence” denotes a sort of harm that is not equitable with the negative effects of advocating for violence. This is important because of accountability and nuance. If I advocate for war, it is unreasonable to try to invalidate my position by claiming that I should volunteer to go to war. You can incorporate that into your argument, but it does not on its own invalidate my argument. Similarly, my advocation of violence is not violence itself, despite how violent all war must necessarily be. This is a matter of using the right methods of investigation and persuasion; you might end up at the rational conclusion using an irrational method, but that method will insidiously steer you wrong elsewhere. It is important to be able to posit advocation of an idea is wrong according to some set of moral axioms without trying to posit the much stronger (and untenable) stance that advocation of violence is itself violence. Rational methods of investigation generalize, and irrational ones do not.

dsacco 9y ago

So you established a “Socratic baseline”, so to speak. You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity. Now can you tell me what amount of difference in views you are willing to tolerate for the sake of working with someone brilliant and productive? If you eat meat and one of the most accomplished physicists in the world is militantly opposed to eating meat, would you work with them? What if they refuse to eat lunch with you if you eat meat? What if their views on abortion are diametrically opposed to yours, and they actively vote against your ideals? What if they believe all human beings with mental defects should be aborted in the womb? In other words, I want you to haggle with your position a bit so I can understand how you react in the more real world scenario, in which an otherwise useful individual’s views are very different, but not cartoonishly different from your own.

charonn0 9y ago
> You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity. What they actually said was "people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about"
- dsacco 9y ago
  Yes, they are intolerant of those people, regardless of how useful they can otherwise be to society. I think we both understand what the parent was saying, and it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Avshalom 9y ago
Are you so incapable of taking an individual situation on it's merits that you can't even handle to possibility that others might not have set in stone rules or mathematically model-able behaviors? Yes situational ethics is messy, no they are not invalid because they are messy.
- dsacco 9y ago