3 ms·

> 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 pre

> 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.
    - jlawson 7y ago
      I think there's a lot of contradictions and circularity in your rationalizations here. Obvious example: "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". Communist speech has "empowered violence against humans". If this was a guiding principle, you'd need to be a supporter of McCarthyist anti-Communist speech restrictions. But you're not; you're fine with May Day parades and communists in Hollywood. Which demonstrates that this isn't a guiding principle; it's a rationalization to harm your outgroup. --- The way your beliefs go wrong is when words get expanded or shifted to apply to new things that they didn't before. E.g. you set up a rule where it's okay to commit aggressive/censorious acts against "Nazis". That's fine in 1944. But pretty soon, people who want to commit these acts anyway will just start using the word "Nazi" more and more broadly. This continues until 2019, when anyone supporting Bill Clinton's 1999 immigration policy is now considered a "Nazi", and thus fair game for all sorts of violence and censorship. Same story with "oppression", "racism", "Islamophobia", "transphobia", and a whole vocabulary of other words specifically designed to terminate thought and justify aggression. This pattern has happened over and over in history; it's at the root of countless tragedies, and I hope you'll reconsider how you're approaching these issues because otherwise there's a good chance you'll end up contributing, if only in a supporting/encouraging/justifying way, to some terrible historical crimes.

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.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    I think there's a lot of contradictions and circularity in your rationalizations here. Obvious example: "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". Communist speech has "empowered violence against humans". If this was a guiding principle, you'd need to be a supporter of McCarthyist anti-Communist speech restrictions. But you're not; you're fine with May Day parades and communists in Hollywood. Which demonstrates that this isn't a guiding principle; it's a rationalization to harm your outgroup. --- The way your beliefs go wrong is when words get expanded or shifted to apply to new things that they didn't before. E.g. you set up a rule where it's okay to commit aggressive/censorious acts against "Nazis". That's fine in 1944. But pretty soon, people who want to commit these acts anyway will just start using the word "Nazi" more and more broadly. This continues until 2019, when anyone supporting Bill Clinton's 1999 immigration policy is now considered a "Nazi", and thus fair game for all sorts of violence and censorship. Same story with "oppression", "racism", "Islamophobia", "transphobia", and a whole vocabulary of other words specifically designed to terminate thought and justify aggression. This pattern has happened over and over in history; it's at the root of countless tragedies, and I hope you'll reconsider how you're approaching these issues because otherwise there's a good chance you'll end up contributing, if only in a supporting/encouraging/justifying way, to some terrible historical crimes.