3 ms·

No, not at all. Being tolerant of political views means accepting political views from a broad spectrum. This is being co-opted by some to reframe tolerance as

No, not at all. Being tolerant of political views means accepting political views from a broad spectrum. This is being co-opted by some to reframe tolerance as being actively intolerant towards disliked views. The latter is intolerance attempting to disguise itself as tolerance. There is no tolerance paradox. For example, people's ability to advocate for the repeal of the 1st Amendment is protected by the 1st Amendment. Allowing people to advocate for the removal of the 1st Amendment, despite being a massively unpopular position (I hope), is an act of tolerance. What is not correct is attempting to claim that it is an act of tolerance to harass or shut down those people advocating for the Amendment's repeal because people believe it would lead to a worse society.

WaxProlix 9y ago
Do you draw the line anywhere? Like, planning murder is illegal right? Openly advocating the destruction of life and property are illegal - why would calling them a political belief change that? Certainly some actions aren't viable political beliefs, no?
- manfredo 9y ago
  Sure, if somebody is conspiring to commit a crime that isn't protected by the principles of political tolerance (or the law for that matter). However, the fact that people even think to place tolerance of conservative views on the same level as planning homicide is ridiculous. Advocating that country raise the minimum salary for H1Bs, wearing a Trump hat (when your co-workers are wearing Hilary gear), advocating for stronger border enforcement, etc. are nowhere near the levels of abject illegality as plotting a murder. The notion that these are even comparable is testament to how much of an echo chamber tech in Silicon Valley has become.
  - WaxProlix 9y ago
    I don't think they're directly comparable, necessarily. But people are talking in this thread as though finding a 'political view' disgusting and not worthy of public discussion is somehow inherently wrong, and I don't think that's the case. Giving airtime or lending legitimacy to holocaust deniers, ethnostate-supporting white nationalists, anti-science FUD types, etc. is detrimental to society as a whole as well as specifically dangerous to specific groups of people. So, for me the line is a little further over than it is for you. The whole issue is made more complex by Trump's endorsement of (and by, I guess) the modern Nazi movement in America. When you embrace partisan politics and associate yourself with that kind of group, even otherwise 'good' things will be viewed with skepticism. (For the record, I am one of those people who is uncomfortable voicing my political opinions at work; I'd never do it in the workplace, and have received harassment - mild, but very targeted - because of comments I've made here on HN and elsewhere on the internet. So I know what it's like to keep quiet for fear of cultural reprisal :)
    - manfredo 9y ago
      > Giving airtime or lending legitimacy to holocaust deniers, ethnostate-supporting white nationalists Pointing to the most extreme end of political spectrum as justification for silencing or ostracizing the people everywhere on that half of the spectrum is both disingenuous and terrible for the political atmosphere. Imagine the reversed situation, someone stated "our company should tolerate liberal views" and I responded by saying, "but what about the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward, and the genocide perpetrated against the Ukrainians by the USSR?" It would be absurd, which is also how I regard this response. Tolerating conservative views is no more an endorsement of Nazis and the holocaust than tolerating liberal views is an endorsement of the Khmer Rouge, the Holodmor, etc. Silicon Valley would be a better place without this kind of rhetoric. > anti-science FUD types Arguably, this could just as easily be applied to mainstream liberal views on the danger (or lack thereof) of nuclear power, GMOs, etc.
      - WaxProlix 9y ago
        I totally agree, Black Book of Communism numbers aside. I think that having someone who's aligned themselves (again, tacitly) with those who explicitly make calls for and white supremacy makes it hard for people to distinguish. > Arguably, this could just as easily be applied to mainstream liberal views on the danger (or lack thereof) of nuclear power, GMOs, etc. Yeah, it's obnoxious and dangerous there, too.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
I disagree; there absolutely is a tolerance paradox. You chose a rather benign example, but one that would be more illustrative would be Nazism. Expressing tolerance of those principles makes them more accepted and mainstream, thus making more accepted and mainstream the intolerance they demonstrate toward nonwhites.
- manfredo 9y ago
  As quick clarification, if you aren't aware the Nationalist Socialist (AKA, Nazi) Party of America genuinely is a party that is protected by the First Amendment[1]. Conversely attempting to suppress Nazism forcibly didn't work either. Remember, Hitler and other early members of the Nazi party were imprisoned. It didn't stop them. And regardless this is straying from the core point. Of course, advocating the mass extermination of Jews, Roma, or any other group would be grounds for a company to fire employees that make those statements - I did not and do not attempt to state that every piece of speech protected by the 1st Amendment should be allowed in the workplace. Rather, the simple principle is that tolerating a view that some people consider intolerant is not, itself, an act of intolerance. Let me put this in a scenario that is more appropriate to a workplace: * You have two co-workers, A and B. * A thinks that affirmative action (structuring hiring policies such that non white & Asians, and women have greater chance to get offers than non-diverse candidates) is necessary to have a tolerant workplace, and by extension not having these policies is an intolerant situation. * B thinks that discriminating on the basis of sex or race in the hiring process is intolerant. * Both A and B go to HR claiming that the other is making intolerant statements. I would argue that if HR takes action against _either_ employee that would be an act of intolerance. Allowing A to make that statement isn't an act of intolerance against B, nor is B's an act of intolerance against A. Sure, I get that A _believes_ B's viewpoint to be intolerant and vice versa. But the company's decision to allow both statements is not an act of intolerance because of that. This is what I'm getting at by saying "there is no paradox of tolerance" in allowing speech. True, individual speakers may think the other is intolerance. But there is no intolerance in allowing these conflicting views to co-exist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

WaxProlix 9y ago

Do you draw the line anywhere? Like, planning murder is illegal right? Openly advocating the destruction of life and property are illegal - why would calling them a political belief change that? Certainly some actions aren't viable political beliefs, no?

manfredo 9y ago
Sure, if somebody is conspiring to commit a crime that isn't protected by the principles of political tolerance (or the law for that matter). However, the fact that people even think to place tolerance of conservative views on the same level as planning homicide is ridiculous. Advocating that country raise the minimum salary for H1Bs, wearing a Trump hat (when your co-workers are wearing Hilary gear), advocating for stronger border enforcement, etc. are nowhere near the levels of abject illegality as plotting a murder. The notion that these are even comparable is testament to how much of an echo chamber tech in Silicon Valley has become.
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  I don't think they're directly comparable, necessarily. But people are talking in this thread as though finding a 'political view' disgusting and not worthy of public discussion is somehow inherently wrong, and I don't think that's the case. Giving airtime or lending legitimacy to holocaust deniers, ethnostate-supporting white nationalists, anti-science FUD types, etc. is detrimental to society as a whole as well as specifically dangerous to specific groups of people. So, for me the line is a little further over than it is for you. The whole issue is made more complex by Trump's endorsement of (and by, I guess) the modern Nazi movement in America. When you embrace partisan politics and associate yourself with that kind of group, even otherwise 'good' things will be viewed with skepticism. (For the record, I am one of those people who is uncomfortable voicing my political opinions at work; I'd never do it in the workplace, and have received harassment - mild, but very targeted - because of comments I've made here on HN and elsewhere on the internet. So I know what it's like to keep quiet for fear of cultural reprisal :)
  - manfredo 9y ago
    > Giving airtime or lending legitimacy to holocaust deniers, ethnostate-supporting white nationalists Pointing to the most extreme end of political spectrum as justification for silencing or ostracizing the people everywhere on that half of the spectrum is both disingenuous and terrible for the political atmosphere. Imagine the reversed situation, someone stated "our company should tolerate liberal views" and I responded by saying, "but what about the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward, and the genocide perpetrated against the Ukrainians by the USSR?" It would be absurd, which is also how I regard this response. Tolerating conservative views is no more an endorsement of Nazis and the holocaust than tolerating liberal views is an endorsement of the Khmer Rouge, the Holodmor, etc. Silicon Valley would be a better place without this kind of rhetoric. > anti-science FUD types Arguably, this could just as easily be applied to mainstream liberal views on the danger (or lack thereof) of nuclear power, GMOs, etc.
    - WaxProlix 9y ago
      I totally agree, Black Book of Communism numbers aside. I think that having someone who's aligned themselves (again, tacitly) with those who explicitly make calls for and white supremacy makes it hard for people to distinguish. > Arguably, this could just as easily be applied to mainstream liberal views on the danger (or lack thereof) of nuclear power, GMOs, etc. Yeah, it's obnoxious and dangerous there, too.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

I disagree; there absolutely is a tolerance paradox. You chose a rather benign example, but one that would be more illustrative would be Nazism. Expressing tolerance of those principles makes them more accepted and mainstream, thus making more accepted and mainstream the intolerance they demonstrate toward nonwhites.

manfredo 9y ago
As quick clarification, if you aren't aware the Nationalist Socialist (AKA, Nazi) Party of America genuinely is a party that is protected by the First Amendment[1]. Conversely attempting to suppress Nazism forcibly didn't work either. Remember, Hitler and other early members of the Nazi party were imprisoned. It didn't stop them. And regardless this is straying from the core point. Of course, advocating the mass extermination of Jews, Roma, or any other group would be grounds for a company to fire employees that make those statements - I did not and do not attempt to state that every piece of speech protected by the 1st Amendment should be allowed in the workplace. Rather, the simple principle is that tolerating a view that some people consider intolerant is not, itself, an act of intolerance. Let me put this in a scenario that is more appropriate to a workplace: * You have two co-workers, A and B. * A thinks that affirmative action (structuring hiring policies such that non white & Asians, and women have greater chance to get offers than non-diverse candidates) is necessary to have a tolerant workplace, and by extension not having these policies is an intolerant situation. * B thinks that discriminating on the basis of sex or race in the hiring process is intolerant. * Both A and B go to HR claiming that the other is making intolerant statements. I would argue that if HR takes action against _either_ employee that would be an act of intolerance. Allowing A to make that statement isn't an act of intolerance against B, nor is B's an act of intolerance against A. Sure, I get that A _believes_ B's viewpoint to be intolerant and vice versa. But the company's decision to allow both statements is not an act of intolerance because of that. This is what I'm getting at by saying "there is no paradox of tolerance" in allowing speech. True, individual speakers may think the other is intolerance. But there is no intolerance in allowing these conflicting views to co-exist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...