4 ms·

> 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

> 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
      He literally says that we should not suppress them so long as we can counter them by rational argument. Do you know what cannot be suppressed by rational argument? Violence, and nothing else.

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
    He literally says that we should not suppress them so long as we can counter them by rational argument. Do you know what cannot be suppressed by rational argument? Violence, and nothing else.