5 ms·

I’m sorry, but it’s not clear to me what you’re saying here. Let me restate my point more succinctly: people are generally intolerant of others once those other

by dsacco 9y ago

I’m sorry, but it’s not clear to me what you’re saying here. Let me restate my point more succinctly: people are generally intolerant of others once those others are sufficiently different from themselves. But they are not typically intolerant of people who are only slightly or moderately in opposition to their views. I would like the parent commenter to consider how much comfortability they are willing to sacrifice in order to get along with someone who is extremely useful. This is a scenario with real world applicability which is not as easy or convenient to say, “I’ll simply not work with them.” I’m not attempting to invalidate their stated position, I’m trying to understand how they react when it becomes messier.

perfmode 9y ago
> people are generally intolerant of others once those others are sufficiently different from themselves Eh. I don’t see how this statement is justified without heavy qualification.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Fair enough; let’s go with an easy example. Someone wants to kill you, and is actively trying to kill you. Naturally, you don’t want to die, and are actively trying to survive. You two are in rather extreme opposition; are you willing to tolerate their presence? Maybe the word “intolerant” is what you disagree with. I think that word is useful because it forces us to examine situations in which we are reacting as strongly to someone as others react to us. In other words, I think it’s helpful to consider “intolerance” to be a symmetrical position, not an asymmetrical one. If we take this abstraction and pull it back down to reality: many people are sufficiently intolerant of gay people that they actively work against them having particular rights. Gay people are generally intolerant of this view, in that they actively work against that one. Now, personally I believe gay people should have the right to get married. But if I initially consider these conflicting positions as symmetrical disagreement, I force myself to rationally derive which one is the “bad” one. “Intolerant” is therefore a helpful, generalizable placeholder for any given pair of conflicting viewpoints, positions, values, etc.
Avshalom 9y ago
>How much comfortability they are willing to sacrifice in order to get along with someone who is extremely useful Yeah, you want them to give you a predefined, quantified, model of their behavior.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Not at all. I’m not asking for a numerical analysis or rating; I’m asking for a qualitative assessment of what sort of scenario turns their personal knobs in such a way that they are willing to put up with an inconvenient situation. A quantitative assessment isn’t reasonable here, and I haven’t requested that. It’s fully possible to examine questions like these in an exact manner without getting to a point of precision. Philosophy does it all the time.
twobyfour 9y ago
I think there are grey areas in terms of what opinions are intolerable. ("Meat is murder"? Does anyone really feel threatened by that? What about forced-birth advocates who want to deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies?) There are not grey areas about "usefulness". I don't care if you're Albert fucking Einstein, I'm not going to let you scare off the other high performers or even cleaning crew that make my business productive and livable.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Oh man, I will take clean toilets over profits any day.
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    Hah. But seriously, how am I supposed to hire and retain anyone if the workplace is hostile? Turnover and rehiring has costs, even if it's turnover of minimum wage staff. And as a hiring manager I don't have any particular interest either in working in an environment that is hostile towards me. Or are you saying that I have an obligation to spend the majority of my waking hours with people who suggest that I have no right to be alive; or that I belong pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen? And if I'm not willing to accept a workplace that's hostile to me, how can I ask the people I hire to accept one that's hostile to them?
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      No, I'm dead serious. I was at a warehouse that went through janitorial staff every month (this was more to do with us being a very second-third-27th chance employer, but in K's case also... not hostility but sexual aggressiveness from many workers) I know what turnover does to over all moral and productivity and I would take good janitors over a raise any year.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > There are not grey areas about "usefulness". I don't care if you're Albert fucking Einstein, I'm not going to let you scare off the other high performers or even cleaning crew that make my business productive and livable. Okay, that’s a fair position and that essentially answers my question. I don’t really have an argument for or against what you’re saying here, I was just curious to see if there is any level of utility at which you’re okay with someone being disliked by the rest of the staff.

by dsacco 9y ago

perfmode 9y ago

> people are generally intolerant of others once those others are sufficiently different from themselves Eh. I don’t see how this statement is justified without heavy qualification.

dsacco 9y ago
Fair enough; let’s go with an easy example. Someone wants to kill you, and is actively trying to kill you. Naturally, you don’t want to die, and are actively trying to survive. You two are in rather extreme opposition; are you willing to tolerate their presence? Maybe the word “intolerant” is what you disagree with. I think that word is useful because it forces us to examine situations in which we are reacting as strongly to someone as others react to us. In other words, I think it’s helpful to consider “intolerance” to be a symmetrical position, not an asymmetrical one. If we take this abstraction and pull it back down to reality: many people are sufficiently intolerant of gay people that they actively work against them having particular rights. Gay people are generally intolerant of this view, in that they actively work against that one. Now, personally I believe gay people should have the right to get married. But if I initially consider these conflicting positions as symmetrical disagreement, I force myself to rationally derive which one is the “bad” one. “Intolerant” is therefore a helpful, generalizable placeholder for any given pair of conflicting viewpoints, positions, values, etc.

Avshalom 9y ago

>How much comfortability they are willing to sacrifice in order to get along with someone who is extremely useful Yeah, you want them to give you a predefined, quantified, model of their behavior.

dsacco 9y ago
Not at all. I’m not asking for a numerical analysis or rating; I’m asking for a qualitative assessment of what sort of scenario turns their personal knobs in such a way that they are willing to put up with an inconvenient situation. A quantitative assessment isn’t reasonable here, and I haven’t requested that. It’s fully possible to examine questions like these in an exact manner without getting to a point of precision. Philosophy does it all the time.

twobyfour 9y ago

I think there are grey areas in terms of what opinions are intolerable. ("Meat is murder"? Does anyone really feel threatened by that? What about forced-birth advocates who want to deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies?) There are not grey areas about "usefulness". I don't care if you're Albert fucking Einstein, I'm not going to let you scare off the other high performers or even cleaning crew that make my business productive and livable.

Avshalom 9y ago
Oh man, I will take clean toilets over profits any day.
- twobyfour 9y ago
  Hah. But seriously, how am I supposed to hire and retain anyone if the workplace is hostile? Turnover and rehiring has costs, even if it's turnover of minimum wage staff. And as a hiring manager I don't have any particular interest either in working in an environment that is hostile towards me. Or are you saying that I have an obligation to spend the majority of my waking hours with people who suggest that I have no right to be alive; or that I belong pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen? And if I'm not willing to accept a workplace that's hostile to me, how can I ask the people I hire to accept one that's hostile to them?
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    No, I'm dead serious. I was at a warehouse that went through janitorial staff every month (this was more to do with us being a very second-third-27th chance employer, but in K's case also... not hostility but sexual aggressiveness from many workers) I know what turnover does to over all moral and productivity and I would take good janitors over a raise any year.
dsacco 9y ago
> There are not grey areas about "usefulness". I don't care if you're Albert fucking Einstein, I'm not going to let you scare off the other high performers or even cleaning crew that make my business productive and livable. Okay, that’s a fair position and that essentially answers my question. I don’t really have an argument for or against what you’re saying here, I was just curious to see if there is any level of utility at which you’re okay with someone being disliked by the rest of the staff.