5 ms·

I think this just shows that tolerance is a self defeating concept. Perhaps the celebration of tolerance should be replaced with celebration of other virtues l

by vivekd 8y ago

I think this just shows that tolerance is a self defeating concept. Perhaps the celebration of tolerance should be replaced with celebration of other virtues like humility, empathy, patience, understanding and honest debate in search of truth. Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated. That's what the intolerant say to make tolerance seem absurd. All that tolerance is about is the recognition that there are lots of different ways to live that are compatible with the same, real, "ultimate truths", and that just being different doesn't mean you are wrong. Interpreting that to mean that there is no right and wrong is simply a straw man.
- vivekd 8y ago
  I think there's a conflation going on here between tolerance of ideas and tolerance of people. My statement was regarding tolerance of ideas, you're talking about tolerance of people. So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. So applying this to real world example, my culture has the caste system which some experts say has been as damaging for the lower caste individuals as slavery has been for people in the West. Demanding tolerance of the caste system because we should 'tolerate different ways of living' is absurd. It is a bad idea and should be challenged. I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. This is a case where there is obvious truth vs untruth - ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false. Calling for intolerance of this untrue belief is in no way the same thing as calling for intolerance of or mistreatment of Indians or Hindu people.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. Yes. But the point is that it should be attacked because it is a bad idea, not because it is a different idea. There is no need for tolerance to be limitless in order to be considered tolerance, just as there is no need for democracy to accept the election of a dictator in order to be considered a democracy. > I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. Sure. But that doesn't mean that you are intolerant, the same way that attempts to assassinate (democratically elected) Hitler were not anti-democratic. It is neither necessary nor helpful to define those terms in such a way that they are self-defeating, there is a useful concept there that can sensibly be labeled "tolerance" that encompasses only the non-self-defeating aspects of tolerance. > ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, but it's usually better to avoid an unnecessary burden of proof ;-)
    - vivekd 8y ago
      >I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, But that's just the point, if reincarnation is a valid belief, then the caste system is valid as well. The two justify each other. The caste system posits that your social status (caste) in this life is a result of your actions in the previous life. It's based on the theory of reincarnation that you will be born again and your next life will be determined by your actions in this one. Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of tolerance. Under any fair standandard it's properly classified as wrong. There is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death. No rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. It is mere superstition. We should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs can and do cause harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system. I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad ideas to persist. And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as valid as scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a nihilistic denial of truth.

by vivekd 8y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated. That's what the intolerant say to make tolerance seem absurd. All that tolerance is about is the recognition that there are lots of different ways to live that are compatible with the same, real, "ultimate truths", and that just being different doesn't mean you are wrong. Interpreting that to mean that there is no right and wrong is simply a straw man.

vivekd 8y ago
I think there's a conflation going on here between tolerance of ideas and tolerance of people. My statement was regarding tolerance of ideas, you're talking about tolerance of people. So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. So applying this to real world example, my culture has the caste system which some experts say has been as damaging for the lower caste individuals as slavery has been for people in the West. Demanding tolerance of the caste system because we should 'tolerate different ways of living' is absurd. It is a bad idea and should be challenged. I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. This is a case where there is obvious truth vs untruth - ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false. Calling for intolerance of this untrue belief is in no way the same thing as calling for intolerance of or mistreatment of Indians or Hindu people.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. Yes. But the point is that it should be attacked because it is a bad idea, not because it is a different idea. There is no need for tolerance to be limitless in order to be considered tolerance, just as there is no need for democracy to accept the election of a dictator in order to be considered a democracy. > I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. Sure. But that doesn't mean that you are intolerant, the same way that attempts to assassinate (democratically elected) Hitler were not anti-democratic. It is neither necessary nor helpful to define those terms in such a way that they are self-defeating, there is a useful concept there that can sensibly be labeled "tolerance" that encompasses only the non-self-defeating aspects of tolerance. > ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, but it's usually better to avoid an unnecessary burden of proof ;-)
  - vivekd 8y ago
    >I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, But that's just the point, if reincarnation is a valid belief, then the caste system is valid as well. The two justify each other. The caste system posits that your social status (caste) in this life is a result of your actions in the previous life. It's based on the theory of reincarnation that you will be born again and your next life will be determined by your actions in this one. Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of tolerance. Under any fair standandard it's properly classified as wrong. There is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death. No rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. It is mere superstition. We should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs can and do cause harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system. I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad ideas to persist. And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as valid as scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a nihilistic denial of truth.