5 ms·

You can't have a group that is inclusive of X and also of people who believe that X are subhuman, e.g. to be inclusive towards Jews you have to exclude antisemi

by gizmo 9y ago

You can't have a group that is inclusive of X and also of people who believe that X are subhuman, e.g. to be inclusive towards Jews you have to exclude antisemites. Or generally: to be inclusive of marginalized people you have to exclude the intolerant. If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.

rendall 9y ago
What you say is generally true, full stop. However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community. The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed. Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s). Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.
- gizmo 9y ago
  The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political discourse in its totality and compare that to the discourse from just 5 years ago. Voices in the far right and far left are louder than they have been for at least a generation. How is this compatible with claims about a narrowing Overton window? It's patently absurd. As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.
  - rendall 9y ago
    "... A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat" Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury. "...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights" I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?
    - gizmo 9y ago
      Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.
      - rendall 9y ago
        Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm. But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal. Let's turn it around: Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two. In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned. In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion. In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence? From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.
thescribe 9y ago
So we should all reject tolerance wholesale if we think at any point in the future website could be in the out group? The point is to jostling and get along with and not murder peole who's ideas we despise at our very core. Tolerance is radical "choosing to get along" or why bother?

by gizmo 9y ago

rendall 9y ago

What you say is generally true, full stop. However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community. The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed. Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s). Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.

gizmo 9y ago
The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political discourse in its totality and compare that to the discourse from just 5 years ago. Voices in the far right and far left are louder than they have been for at least a generation. How is this compatible with claims about a narrowing Overton window? It's patently absurd. As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.
- rendall 9y ago
  "... A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat" Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury. "...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights" I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?
  - gizmo 9y ago
    Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.
    - rendall 9y ago
      Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm. But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal. Let's turn it around: Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two. In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned. In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion. In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence? From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.

thescribe 9y ago

So we should all reject tolerance wholesale if we think at any point in the future website could be in the out group? The point is to jostling and get along with and not murder peole who's ideas we despise at our very core. Tolerance is radical "choosing to get along" or why bother?