3 ms·

I really liked this perspective and I think I learned a lot about my own rejection of my heritage (it's "red group") and hometown friends and family. It's true,

I really liked this perspective and I think I learned a lot about my own rejection of my heritage (it's "red group") and hometown friends and family. It's true, I hate'm more than ISIS. Pretty silly, but I think it's good that I'm chewing on this now. One thing I strongly disagree with: >When a friend of mine heard Eich got fired, she didn’t see anything wrong with it. “I can tolerate anything except intolerance,” she said. >“Intolerance” is starting to look like another one of those words like “white” and “American”. >“I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Doesn’t sound quite so noble now, does it? If Eich had gotten fired for arguing that healthcare should be a capitalist free market system in America, or that guns ownership should have no regulation, or some other red-group position that doesn't involve the oppression of others, I'd defend him. But, intolerance can't be tolerated. Paradox of tolerance, sure. Arguably, making me intolerant (ARGUABLY). There's a difference between conservative political views and intolerant political views. The fact that a shitload of red group values coincide with intolerance (or that a lot of intolerant people are red group) is sure unfortunate for red groupers that are tolerant, but that's life. (and no, blue group "intolerance of the intolerant" does not equate to "bad people on both sides" for me)

0815test 7y ago
Maybe Eich should have gotten fired for some other things he did cough cough js cough cough but what's "intolerant" about donating to a political organization which is pursuing its cause by entirely legitimate, non-violent, tolerant means? And what's "tolerant" about firing someone for donating to the _wrong_ sort of political organization? In fact, some politicized organizations, e.g. unions, do engage in violence every now and then, but firing someone for donating or contributing to them would still be beyond the pale. That's how strong the taboo against "you donated to a political organization I don't like, you're fired!" is.
- komali2 7y ago
  > donating to a political organization which is pursuing its cause by entirely legitimate, non-violent, tolerant means Restricting the ability of a class of people to marry based on their sexual orientation re: consenting adults is not tolerant. There is no "legitimate" way to restrict these human rights - gay people were not an "intolerant" class in this scenario, they were a persecuted minority. Therefore, Eich engaged in a form of intolerance that justified the blowback.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > Restricting the ability of ... is not tolerant You can say this about anything the government does. Any law at all is going to infringe on some people's preexisting natural rights and deprive them of some "ability" they used to have! So, unless you're some sort of extreme anarchist or libertarian, this is still not a good defense of "you donated to the wrong political cause, you're fired!"
    - komali2 7y ago
      I get it, and I'm not intelligent enough by far to make a decent defense of the tolerance paradox, so instead I'll attempt to describe how it works in my value system. I see it as a sort of logic system. Tolerance of good things is good, tolerance of bad things is bad. Intolerance is bad. Intolerance of bad things is good. Thus Tolerance OF intolerance = bad Intolerance OF tolerance = bad Tolerance OF good = good Tolerance OF bad = bad Intolerance OF good = bad Intolerance OF bad = good. Tolerance OF intolerance OF bad = good Tolerance OF tolerance OF bad = bad Intolerance OF intolerance OF bad = bad Intolerance OF tolerance OF bad = good I am confident that I take a measured approach to good vs bad. I recognize moral relativity but I have still settled for myself on a set of values (that you'd probably call blue group for the majority). We could I guess argue around what is bad or good but that sounds... tiring.
      - jlawson 7y ago
        Issue is the definition of "intolerance". Back to Popper, who uses intolerance as: "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." In contrast, your definition seems to be something like: If the speech is advocating something that would hurt someone who is already a victim, it's intolerance. I think Popper's definition is better. The way you use it is sort of nonsensical. E.g. If someone advocated bombing Tokyo in 1944, is that 'intolerance'? No, it's advocating a policy of killing. Same with advocating the death penalty, or war against Iran, or increased sentences for small crimes, or more drone strikes in Pakistan. If these are not 'intolerant', how can you say that advocating a ban on gay marriage is 'intolerant'? It may be wrong but it's not intolerant because it doesn't denounce rational argument. Intolerant doesn't mean 'wrong opinion'. It doesn't even mean 'super wrong opinion with really bad outcomes'. Intolerance is being unwilling to have a conversation. It's not about what you're arguing for. It's whether you're willing to argue at all.
xyzzyz 7y ago
Let’s look back at the original quote of Karl Popper: 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. You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies?
- komali2 7y ago
  I appreciate your approach here. Then again, while Karl Popper invented the term, his initial quote around it doesn't for me define law. But, to your point: > You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. I would not be surprised to learn of a weaponized gay uprising somewhere like Utah, particularly in the last century or two. It was literally war for survival for them. Still is, in parts of the world and even parts of America. The stories I could pass on to you, and you can easily find on your own, stretch straight into 2019. Eich was a member of this persecution class, even if he would be one saying "guys guys, we shouldn't HURT them for their gayness, even though their gayness is bad! Now here's another 1000$, feel free to spend it on tar." > Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies? There's ambiguity here, around what "suppress" means, "suppress the utterance," "keep them in check," etc. Anyway, Popper's word isn't law, and he himself contributes to this ambiguity: > We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. To me, Mozilla is perfectly justified saying "we do not tolerate the intolerant, please leave our organization." Nobody at Mozilla (that I remember) was saying "put a ball gag on that man, he should not even be allowed to speak." The argument was "Mozilla doesn't tolerate this. By having him at the organization, we appear to tolerate it. We implicitly tolerate it. We pay him a salary and some of that money he spends on oppressing gays. He must go."

0815test 7y ago

Maybe Eich should have gotten fired for some other things he did cough cough js cough cough but what's "intolerant" about donating to a political organization which is pursuing its cause by entirely legitimate, non-violent, tolerant means? And what's "tolerant" about firing someone for donating to the _wrong_ sort of political organization? In fact, some politicized organizations, e.g. unions, do engage in violence every now and then, but firing someone for donating or contributing to them would still be beyond the pale. That's how strong the taboo against "you donated to a political organization I don't like, you're fired!" is.

komali2 7y ago
> donating to a political organization which is pursuing its cause by entirely legitimate, non-violent, tolerant means Restricting the ability of a class of people to marry based on their sexual orientation re: consenting adults is not tolerant. There is no "legitimate" way to restrict these human rights - gay people were not an "intolerant" class in this scenario, they were a persecuted minority. Therefore, Eich engaged in a form of intolerance that justified the blowback.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > Restricting the ability of ... is not tolerant You can say this about anything the government does. Any law at all is going to infringe on some people's preexisting natural rights and deprive them of some "ability" they used to have! So, unless you're some sort of extreme anarchist or libertarian, this is still not a good defense of "you donated to the wrong political cause, you're fired!"
  - komali2 7y ago
    I get it, and I'm not intelligent enough by far to make a decent defense of the tolerance paradox, so instead I'll attempt to describe how it works in my value system. I see it as a sort of logic system. Tolerance of good things is good, tolerance of bad things is bad. Intolerance is bad. Intolerance of bad things is good. Thus Tolerance OF intolerance = bad Intolerance OF tolerance = bad Tolerance OF good = good Tolerance OF bad = bad Intolerance OF good = bad Intolerance OF bad = good. Tolerance OF intolerance OF bad = good Tolerance OF tolerance OF bad = bad Intolerance OF intolerance OF bad = bad Intolerance OF tolerance OF bad = good I am confident that I take a measured approach to good vs bad. I recognize moral relativity but I have still settled for myself on a set of values (that you'd probably call blue group for the majority). We could I guess argue around what is bad or good but that sounds... tiring.
    - jlawson 7y ago
      Issue is the definition of "intolerance". Back to Popper, who uses intolerance as: "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." In contrast, your definition seems to be something like: If the speech is advocating something that would hurt someone who is already a victim, it's intolerance. I think Popper's definition is better. The way you use it is sort of nonsensical. E.g. If someone advocated bombing Tokyo in 1944, is that 'intolerance'? No, it's advocating a policy of killing. Same with advocating the death penalty, or war against Iran, or increased sentences for small crimes, or more drone strikes in Pakistan. If these are not 'intolerant', how can you say that advocating a ban on gay marriage is 'intolerant'? It may be wrong but it's not intolerant because it doesn't denounce rational argument. Intolerant doesn't mean 'wrong opinion'. It doesn't even mean 'super wrong opinion with really bad outcomes'. Intolerance is being unwilling to have a conversation. It's not about what you're arguing for. It's whether you're willing to argue at all.

xyzzyz 7y ago

Let’s look back at the original quote of Karl Popper: 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. You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies?

komali2 7y ago
I appreciate your approach here. Then again, while Karl Popper invented the term, his initial quote around it doesn't for me define law. But, to your point: > You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. I would not be surprised to learn of a weaponized gay uprising somewhere like Utah, particularly in the last century or two. It was literally war for survival for them. Still is, in parts of the world and even parts of America. The stories I could pass on to you, and you can easily find on your own, stretch straight into 2019. Eich was a member of this persecution class, even if he would be one saying "guys guys, we shouldn't HURT them for their gayness, even though their gayness is bad! Now here's another 1000$, feel free to spend it on tar." > Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies? There's ambiguity here, around what "suppress" means, "suppress the utterance," "keep them in check," etc. Anyway, Popper's word isn't law, and he himself contributes to this ambiguity: > We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. To me, Mozilla is perfectly justified saying "we do not tolerate the intolerant, please leave our organization." Nobody at Mozilla (that I remember) was saying "put a ball gag on that man, he should not even be allowed to speak." The argument was "Mozilla doesn't tolerate this. By having him at the organization, we appear to tolerate it. We implicitly tolerate it. We pay him a salary and some of that money he spends on oppressing gays. He must go."