3 ms·

Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture mas

by xyzzyz 7y ago

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. But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else). Thus, in the Karl Popper's original view of the paradox of tolerance, he'd argue that we shouldn't suppress the intolerant ideology of the people who voted for that ballot, especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right? Look, for me, your ideology of suppressing all ideologies you deem intolerant, regardless of the actual actions of the followers, is very much intolerant, in the original sense of Popper: "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're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters. Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies?

komali2 7y ago
> especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right? No. It is not possible to convince someone that doesn't want homosexuals to have the same rights have other humans, that they should have the same rights, with "rational argument." First-hand experience. Sometimes introducing them to confident gays who are proud of their personhood works, though that could just result in an attempt to "save" the homosexual from their sinful actions. Another way is peer pressure via zeitgeist, which is happening now. > But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else) Systemic implementation of dehumanizing laws results in a cultural approval of acts of violence. If tomorrow the state of California said to you "your race (whatever it may be) can no longer marry," how would that feel? It'd feel like fists and pistols time to me. Sometimes that happens, and we get black panthers. What else is someone to do when they are treated as sub humans? Kowtow? "Please, oppressors, hear my rational pleas. I don't mean to be intolerant of your viewpoint, but I argue that I am human." >We're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters. I don't speak for the mainstream media. I blame them for the rampant gun violence and uptick in suicide in this country, for what it's worth. At the same time, there are good investigative outlets exposing the hypocrisy and crimes of oppressive government officials. Like all human institution, it's imperfect. > Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies? I ask myself this nearly every day. So far the answer is still "no." Pretty easy to say so: I don't do things that support intolerance (insofar as intolerance of intolerance doesn't count as intolerance in my value system, which is the direct representation of my view on this discussion).
- 0815test 7y ago
  > No. It is not possible to convince someone that doesn't want [X's] to have the same rights [as] other humans, that they should have the same rights, with "rational argument." Depending on what you mean by "rational argument", this is extremely wrong. All known expansions of our moral circle to encompass other humans and even other sorts of sentient beings, going as far back as Stoic philosophy in antiquity, have occurred precisely via (more or less overtly stated) moral/ethical arguments of this sort. Even OP's blogpost is itself such an argument! There are people that your basic contention applies to - people you can't convince via such a 'rational' appeal to morals; consider the Christchurch killer, whom I just discussed in another comment in this HN-thread. And if hate content turns out to systematically, with relatively-high probability, offer up pretexts that such individuals can trivially use to justify, publicize, glorify etc. their murderous acts, that's definitely something which should be of grave concern to us; and a meaningful, perhaps even a decisive challenge to the usual arguments for maximalist free speech. But that's a very different argument indeed to the one you are actually making here!

by xyzzyz 7y ago

komali2 7y ago

> especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right? No. It is not possible to convince someone that doesn't want homosexuals to have the same rights have other humans, that they should have the same rights, with "rational argument." First-hand experience. Sometimes introducing them to confident gays who are proud of their personhood works, though that could just result in an attempt to "save" the homosexual from their sinful actions. Another way is peer pressure via zeitgeist, which is happening now. > But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else) Systemic implementation of dehumanizing laws results in a cultural approval of acts of violence. If tomorrow the state of California said to you "your race (whatever it may be) can no longer marry," how would that feel? It'd feel like fists and pistols time to me. Sometimes that happens, and we get black panthers. What else is someone to do when they are treated as sub humans? Kowtow? "Please, oppressors, hear my rational pleas. I don't mean to be intolerant of your viewpoint, but I argue that I am human." >We're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters. I don't speak for the mainstream media. I blame them for the rampant gun violence and uptick in suicide in this country, for what it's worth. At the same time, there are good investigative outlets exposing the hypocrisy and crimes of oppressive government officials. Like all human institution, it's imperfect. > Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies? I ask myself this nearly every day. So far the answer is still "no." Pretty easy to say so: I don't do things that support intolerance (insofar as intolerance of intolerance doesn't count as intolerance in my value system, which is the direct representation of my view on this discussion).

0815test 7y ago
> No. It is not possible to convince someone that doesn't want [X's] to have the same rights [as] other humans, that they should have the same rights, with "rational argument." Depending on what you mean by "rational argument", this is extremely wrong. All known expansions of our moral circle to encompass other humans and even other sorts of sentient beings, going as far back as Stoic philosophy in antiquity, have occurred precisely via (more or less overtly stated) moral/ethical arguments of this sort. Even OP's blogpost is itself such an argument! There are people that your basic contention applies to - people you can't convince via such a 'rational' appeal to morals; consider the Christchurch killer, whom I just discussed in another comment in this HN-thread. And if hate content turns out to systematically, with relatively-high probability, offer up pretexts that such individuals can trivially use to justify, publicize, glorify etc. their murderous acts, that's definitely something which should be of grave concern to us; and a meaningful, perhaps even a decisive challenge to the usual arguments for maximalist free speech. But that's a very different argument indeed to the one you are actually making here!