7 ms·

I could not disagree more. We have become paralyzed by our "vehement disagreements." You want evidence? Look at political discussions on Twitter, Facebook, o

I could not disagree more. We have become paralyzed by our "vehement disagreements." You want evidence? Look at political discussions on Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit. People should at a minimum share a common GOAL if they want to have a meaningful discussion. It's fine to disagree about the means. And if you dehumanize me, by whatever metric you hold dear, say that I'm a Dreamer, or Trans, or not a member of your race or religion, then I'm sorry, but I don't care to listen to you at all. Accepting my humanity and dignity is table stakes, not up for discussion.

naasking 8y ago
Sure, and the common goal here is to define the ethical boundaries of AI. As for disagreement paralysis, that's a product of a lack of charity on all sides. Presumably a bunch of ethical scholars will know better. I honestly don't know what your last point is about.
pdonis 8y ago
> Accepting my humanity and dignity is table stakes, not up for discussion. Which is exactly what was not done with the person who got removed.
- ionised 8y ago
  How exactly are you supposed to value the humanity of someone who doesn't value the humanity of others? Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant?
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant? Because unless the intolerance are initiating or calling for violence, that's literally what being tolerant means.
    - ionised 8y ago
      Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. All you're doing is introducing a poison pill and giving it acceptance. There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. The latter group deserves no tolerance, because it means the inevitable destruction of your own group. How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? Do you tolerate all these groups and their views? I sure as shit don't.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. > There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". > How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? I'm tolerant of any view that doesn't call for violence. ISIS should be fought because they are violent, not because they have intolerant views. The KKK and Combat 18 should be fought when they engage in or call for violence, not because they are intolerant of non-whites. There's no grey area here, the dividing line of what constitutes tolerance is quite clear: violence and inciting violence is unacceptable, and anything else is permissible free speech that should be fought only with speech. That's the very bedrock of peaceful democratic republics.
        ionised 8y ago
        > So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? I'm totally fine with Muslims. Most Muslims have met are very tolerant because they don't take their religion too seriously, like most Christians. They pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, ignoring the bits don't jive with modern life and their personal attitudes towards life, sex and other people. Their basic human instincts always beat their religion in the end. I might think their religion is a batshit crazy comfort blanket just like I do Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make them intolerant (in my view). Of course some will use their religion to excuse their intolerance. That;s true of many groups. In that case I'd rather just not engage with those people. Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant? Because I sure as shit am not. I can't see why else you you would accuse me of something I never said unless you yourself have made these prejudicial equivalences in your head. > Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". Of course violence is a part of it. How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? The violently intolerant are the ones I'm talking about. ISIS, KKK, white supremacists, neo-nazise etc. I won't engage with these people, but they often leave you no choice. I have no tolerance for them, just like they don't for me.
elliekelly 8y ago
> We have become paralyzed by our "vehement disagreements." But then > And if you dehumanize me, by whatever metric you hold dear, say that I'm a Dreamer, or Trans, or not a member of your race or religion, then I'm sorry, but I don't care to listen to you at all. Your second point is exactly the sort of reasoning that lands us in disagreement paralysis territory. Politics aside (though I suspect our politics are largely aligned) the people on the other side of the table, rightly or wrongly, feel the exact same way and feel just as strongly. I don't know how to fix disagreement paralysis but I am all but certain it won't be fixed by refusing to listen to one another.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  > I don't know how to fix disagreement paralysis but I am all but certain it won't be fixed by refusing to listen to one another. I'm not going to "fix" anti-vaccine people in a discussion about something unrelated. Or flat-Earth. Climate Change deniers. Essential Oil MLM. And I don't want a single one of them on any kind of science advisory board. Just as a for-instance. There are places to have conversations. I'm a huge fan of listening and empathizing and common ground, etc. But sometimes a job needs to get done, and some people's beliefs make them human potholes.
- nl 8y ago
  Karl Popper wrote widely on this. His basic point was that a tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance. It's often referred to the paradox of tolerance, and is widely accepted as lacking logical or practical flaws.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Except Popper was saying that we cannot tolerate violence, not that we cannot tolerate words. Everyone misrepresents the paradox of tolerance.
    - nl 8y ago
      That's absolutely not correct. Here's the quote from The Open Society and Its Enemies: Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Note this: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force" It's speaking about philosophies, not physical actions.

naasking 8y ago

Sure, and the common goal here is to define the ethical boundaries of AI. As for disagreement paralysis, that's a product of a lack of charity on all sides. Presumably a bunch of ethical scholars will know better. I honestly don't know what your last point is about.

pdonis 8y ago

> Accepting my humanity and dignity is table stakes, not up for discussion. Which is exactly what was not done with the person who got removed.

ionised 8y ago
How exactly are you supposed to value the humanity of someone who doesn't value the humanity of others? Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant?
- naasking 8y ago
  > Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant? Because unless the intolerance are initiating or calling for violence, that's literally what being tolerant means.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. All you're doing is introducing a poison pill and giving it acceptance. There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. The latter group deserves no tolerance, because it means the inevitable destruction of your own group. How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? Do you tolerate all these groups and their views? I sure as shit don't.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. > There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". > How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? I'm tolerant of any view that doesn't call for violence. ISIS should be fought because they are violent, not because they have intolerant views. The KKK and Combat 18 should be fought when they engage in or call for violence, not because they are intolerant of non-whites. There's no grey area here, the dividing line of what constitutes tolerance is quite clear: violence and inciting violence is unacceptable, and anything else is permissible free speech that should be fought only with speech. That's the very bedrock of peaceful democratic republics.
      - ionised 8y ago
        > So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? I'm totally fine with Muslims. Most Muslims have met are very tolerant because they don't take their religion too seriously, like most Christians. They pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, ignoring the bits don't jive with modern life and their personal attitudes towards life, sex and other people. Their basic human instincts always beat their religion in the end. I might think their religion is a batshit crazy comfort blanket just like I do Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make them intolerant (in my view). Of course some will use their religion to excuse their intolerance. That;s true of many groups. In that case I'd rather just not engage with those people. Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant? Because I sure as shit am not. I can't see why else you you would accuse me of something I never said unless you yourself have made these prejudicial equivalences in your head. > Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". Of course violence is a part of it. How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? The violently intolerant are the ones I'm talking about. ISIS, KKK, white supremacists, neo-nazise etc. I won't engage with these people, but they often leave you no choice. I have no tolerance for them, just like they don't for me.

elliekelly 8y ago

> We have become paralyzed by our "vehement disagreements." But then > And if you dehumanize me, by whatever metric you hold dear, say that I'm a Dreamer, or Trans, or not a member of your race or religion, then I'm sorry, but I don't care to listen to you at all. Your second point is exactly the sort of reasoning that lands us in disagreement paralysis territory. Politics aside (though I suspect our politics are largely aligned) the people on the other side of the table, rightly or wrongly, feel the exact same way and feel just as strongly. I don't know how to fix disagreement paralysis but I am all but certain it won't be fixed by refusing to listen to one another.

VikingCoder 8y ago
> I don't know how to fix disagreement paralysis but I am all but certain it won't be fixed by refusing to listen to one another. I'm not going to "fix" anti-vaccine people in a discussion about something unrelated. Or flat-Earth. Climate Change deniers. Essential Oil MLM. And I don't want a single one of them on any kind of science advisory board. Just as a for-instance. There are places to have conversations. I'm a huge fan of listening and empathizing and common ground, etc. But sometimes a job needs to get done, and some people's beliefs make them human potholes.
nl 8y ago
Karl Popper wrote widely on this. His basic point was that a tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance. It's often referred to the paradox of tolerance, and is widely accepted as lacking logical or practical flaws.
- naasking 8y ago
  Except Popper was saying that we cannot tolerate violence, not that we cannot tolerate words. Everyone misrepresents the paradox of tolerance.
  - nl 8y ago
    That's absolutely not correct. Here's the quote from The Open Society and Its Enemies: Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Note this: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force" It's speaking about philosophies, not physical actions.