5 ms·

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 w

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.
      - komali2 7y ago
        You are far better at rhetorical argument than me, so the only thing I can do is state my values as well as I am capable: I like your framing of Popper's definition of intolerance, and yes I don't feel that bombing Japan in 1944 was a form of intolerance (it was a form of intolerance of intolerance, which for me is Good). The Japanese were not to be argued with - they were enslaving, experimenting on, and raping the Chinese and Filipinos at a terrifying rate. The ideology can only be not tolerated until it poses existential risk, at which point it has to go the way of the Nazis (and have the entire world fight against it). For me intolerance doesn't just mean "not open to rational discussion," well, maybe it does? Anybody that believes some humans should have different rights than others is to me intolerant, unless the humans they're intolerating are ones who themselves are seeking to oppress other humans. In my ethic system, it is irrational to view any human as different than another... Unless that human is engaged in oppression. I see the risk for circular logic but I don't feel I've fallen prey to it, I'm just bad at explaining it. Basically, I don't believe it's ok to have a government step in and say "you aren't allowed to believe these things" to a Nazi. I do believe it's ok for everyone to say "fuck off with your Nazi ideals, you may not present them at this venue / you may not work here while you espouse them." I do believe it's ok for a government to say "your beliefs have in the past empowered violence against humans, you don't get to sit in the park with a megaphone and espouse them. Invite people to your home to talk about it if you want to" i.e. how Germany deals with Nazis in 2019. At the very least we can see the zeitgeist shifting - KKK demonstrators are hilariously outnumbered in 2019, so things are going in the direction of tolerance by my definition of the word.

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.
    - komali2 7y ago
      You are far better at rhetorical argument than me, so the only thing I can do is state my values as well as I am capable: I like your framing of Popper's definition of intolerance, and yes I don't feel that bombing Japan in 1944 was a form of intolerance (it was a form of intolerance of intolerance, which for me is Good). The Japanese were not to be argued with - they were enslaving, experimenting on, and raping the Chinese and Filipinos at a terrifying rate. The ideology can only be not tolerated until it poses existential risk, at which point it has to go the way of the Nazis (and have the entire world fight against it). For me intolerance doesn't just mean "not open to rational discussion," well, maybe it does? Anybody that believes some humans should have different rights than others is to me intolerant, unless the humans they're intolerating are ones who themselves are seeking to oppress other humans. In my ethic system, it is irrational to view any human as different than another... Unless that human is engaged in oppression. I see the risk for circular logic but I don't feel I've fallen prey to it, I'm just bad at explaining it. Basically, I don't believe it's ok to have a government step in and say "you aren't allowed to believe these things" to a Nazi. I do believe it's ok for everyone to say "fuck off with your Nazi ideals, you may not present them at this venue / you may not work here while you espouse them." I do believe it's ok for a government to say "your beliefs have in the past empowered violence against humans, you don't get to sit in the park with a megaphone and espouse them. Invite people to your home to talk about it if you want to" i.e. how Germany deals with Nazis in 2019. At the very least we can see the zeitgeist shifting - KKK demonstrators are hilariously outnumbered in 2019, so things are going in the direction of tolerance by my definition of the word.