4 ms·

You're missing the point. I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition - those quickest to cry bigot are often guilty of acting like one

You're missing the point. I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition - those quickest to cry bigot are often guilty of acting like one themselves. Case-in-point: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey being forced to apologise for eating at Chick-fil-A during LGBT Month. What kind of bizarre intolerant nonsense is that? Another case-in-point: Boston and Chicago mayors claim "Chick-fil-A values are not [our] values" and refuse to let them open branches in those cities. Absurd.

caconym_ 8y ago
> I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition Come again? It seems like you're the one who's missing the point, anyway. You didn't address anything I wrote in my comment. Par for the course, I guess. Just imagine I wrote the exact same comment again, and reply to that if you feel like it.
starshadowx2 8y ago
The paradox of intolerance[1]: being tolerant of those who are intolerant leads to less tolerance. It is completely right to call out intolerant views and actions and work towards eliminating them. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance
- weberc2 8y ago
  The obvious problems with 'the paradox of intolerance' being that anyone who can convince themselves of another's intolerance now has moral license to behave intolerantly to an unspecified degree. Of course, exactly this sort of thing happens all the time; notably, it was used to rationalize Google's firing of James Damore--Damore's memo allegedly contained "dogwhistles" so he deserved being fired, slandered by the media, and mobbed on social media.
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    If it wasn't problematic it probably wouldn't be called a paradox. I'm inclined to divide intolerances into two types: intolerances based on what somebody thinks, and intolerance based on what somebody is. I'm further inclined to model intolerances as a directed graph where nodes represent a group of one of those two types, e.g. conservatives and men might be represented by individual nodes of those two types respectively. Edges represent an intolerance, e.g. there would be an edge pointing from Klan members to black people. The former node would be of the first type, the latter of the second. Where there's a cycle in this graph we are seeing a mutual intolerance of people with different ideas. An example might be people who think the Earth is flat and people who think it is round. Who is right? It's impossible to say without diving into the issues themselves. flat earthers <=> round earthers Because what you think is independent of what you are, nodes of the second type cannot have outgoing edges. Incoming edges represent base intolerances of the sort that have historically been very harmful: racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on. Obviously these edges represent a different type of intolerance because they are based on innate attributes that their targets have no control over. To a liberal person, they are essentially definitionally bad. To an illiberal person, they're fine. Great, even, depending on who you ask. Note that I'm talking about liberalism in the general definitional sense, not in the modern U.S. politics sense (i.e. "the left"). So, how about this graph taken from real life (the <=> represents two edges, one pointing in each direction): anti-racists <=> white racists -> non-whites Deletion of the rightmost edge (i.e. deletion of white racism) means that we also have to delete 'white racists' or the implied meaning of the graph is paradoxical. It then follows that we have to remove 'anti-racists'. Now we have no intolerance at all—all that's left in the graph is `non-whites`, enjoying their existence without harassment, and all it took was the elimination of racism. You could also remove the 'white racists' node, with similar meaning and identical effect. However, deletion of 'anti-racists' leaves the racism intact. I'd argue that this form of graph appears in many places where there is an illiberal group intolerant of a type two group and a liberal group locked in mutual intolerance with the illiberal group. The inverse setup doesn't really appear because, as I noted before, edges pointing to type two nodes represent a sort of intolerance that is anathema to liberals. I'd also argue that there is a strong implication that these sorts of edges are the most important to remove—because, as demonstrated, doing so causes the rest of the graph to collapse. They are the "root cause", if you will, of many webs of interconnected intolerances. It should be obvious that this model denies the assertion made by many modern American 'conservatives' that intolerances are all equivalent and relative, "the tolerant left", etcetera. I would say the water is most muddied by the fact that our 'left' and 'right' do not map cleanly onto liberal and illiberal. It's easy and sexy—but invalid—to apply the same political label to someone who thinks gay couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples, and someone who thinks all white people should be killed. P.S. Damore is a moron and his pseudoscientific screed was legitimately offensive to his co-workers. That's fine justification for him to be fired from his job at a private company. As for the rest of it, we live in a culture of growing illiberalism and zeal for generating outrage. It's a bummer.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  Your very own link lists other major philosophers and thinkers (including Thomas Jefferson) who disagree with Karl Popper's conclusion on paradox of intolerance! There is _no_ universally agreed upon answer to the paradox of intolerance; I do not know why people keep pretending that there is. (I will also observe that, where the article notes: "Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.", it clearly applies to those who wish to (quoting from your post) "...call out intolerant views and actions and work towards eliminating them".)
smhost 8y ago
That's very intolerant of you to cry bigot about people who support LGBT rights. Totally bizarre intolerant nonsense.

caconym_ 8y ago

> I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition Come again? It seems like you're the one who's missing the point, anyway. You didn't address anything I wrote in my comment. Par for the course, I guess. Just imagine I wrote the exact same comment again, and reply to that if you feel like it.

starshadowx2 8y ago

The paradox of intolerance[1]: being tolerant of those who are intolerant leads to less tolerance. It is completely right to call out intolerant views and actions and work towards eliminating them. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance

weberc2 8y ago
The obvious problems with 'the paradox of intolerance' being that anyone who can convince themselves of another's intolerance now has moral license to behave intolerantly to an unspecified degree. Of course, exactly this sort of thing happens all the time; notably, it was used to rationalize Google's firing of James Damore--Damore's memo allegedly contained "dogwhistles" so he deserved being fired, slandered by the media, and mobbed on social media.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  If it wasn't problematic it probably wouldn't be called a paradox. I'm inclined to divide intolerances into two types: intolerances based on what somebody thinks, and intolerance based on what somebody is. I'm further inclined to model intolerances as a directed graph where nodes represent a group of one of those two types, e.g. conservatives and men might be represented by individual nodes of those two types respectively. Edges represent an intolerance, e.g. there would be an edge pointing from Klan members to black people. The former node would be of the first type, the latter of the second. Where there's a cycle in this graph we are seeing a mutual intolerance of people with different ideas. An example might be people who think the Earth is flat and people who think it is round. Who is right? It's impossible to say without diving into the issues themselves. flat earthers <=> round earthers Because what you think is independent of what you are, nodes of the second type cannot have outgoing edges. Incoming edges represent base intolerances of the sort that have historically been very harmful: racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on. Obviously these edges represent a different type of intolerance because they are based on innate attributes that their targets have no control over. To a liberal person, they are essentially definitionally bad. To an illiberal person, they're fine. Great, even, depending on who you ask. Note that I'm talking about liberalism in the general definitional sense, not in the modern U.S. politics sense (i.e. "the left"). So, how about this graph taken from real life (the <=> represents two edges, one pointing in each direction): anti-racists <=> white racists -> non-whites Deletion of the rightmost edge (i.e. deletion of white racism) means that we also have to delete 'white racists' or the implied meaning of the graph is paradoxical. It then follows that we have to remove 'anti-racists'. Now we have no intolerance at all—all that's left in the graph is `non-whites`, enjoying their existence without harassment, and all it took was the elimination of racism. You could also remove the 'white racists' node, with similar meaning and identical effect. However, deletion of 'anti-racists' leaves the racism intact. I'd argue that this form of graph appears in many places where there is an illiberal group intolerant of a type two group and a liberal group locked in mutual intolerance with the illiberal group. The inverse setup doesn't really appear because, as I noted before, edges pointing to type two nodes represent a sort of intolerance that is anathema to liberals. I'd also argue that there is a strong implication that these sorts of edges are the most important to remove—because, as demonstrated, doing so causes the rest of the graph to collapse. They are the "root cause", if you will, of many webs of interconnected intolerances. It should be obvious that this model denies the assertion made by many modern American 'conservatives' that intolerances are all equivalent and relative, "the tolerant left", etcetera. I would say the water is most muddied by the fact that our 'left' and 'right' do not map cleanly onto liberal and illiberal. It's easy and sexy—but invalid—to apply the same political label to someone who thinks gay couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples, and someone who thinks all white people should be killed. P.S. Damore is a moron and his pseudoscientific screed was legitimately offensive to his co-workers. That's fine justification for him to be fired from his job at a private company. As for the rest of it, we live in a culture of growing illiberalism and zeal for generating outrage. It's a bummer.
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
Your very own link lists other major philosophers and thinkers (including Thomas Jefferson) who disagree with Karl Popper's conclusion on paradox of intolerance! There is _no_ universally agreed upon answer to the paradox of intolerance; I do not know why people keep pretending that there is. (I will also observe that, where the article notes: "Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.", it clearly applies to those who wish to (quoting from your post) "...call out intolerant views and actions and work towards eliminating them".)

smhost 8y ago

That's very intolerant of you to cry bigot about people who support LGBT rights. Totally bizarre intolerant nonsense.