5 ms·

The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unpr

by newhaus1994 7y ago

The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.

irrational 7y ago
So, the gay couple coming to the baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding are the intolerant ones because they are the first intolerant action in the chain? Because you know that will be how it will be spun.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Congratulations on the apt handle. Your argument is irrational because it ignores the fact that the baker committed the first intolerant act in the chain, not the gay couple.
  - educationdata 7y ago
    So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
    - DonHopkins 7y ago
      Absolutely: refusing to provide service to gays, when you provide the same services to other people just because they are not gay, is indeed literally intolerant, without your scare-quotes or any other qualification. What's so hard for you to understand about that? If you're trying to argue for some slippery weaselly nuanced non-standard definition of "intolerant" which excludes bigoted bakers that you just pulled out of your butt, remember that it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and also excuses gay couples for not tolerating homophobic bakers. It's not my responsibility to provide you with the standard definitions of common English words, when you're obviously capable of googling them yourself, and obviously misunderstanding them on purpose, and obviously not arguing in good faith. Look it up on Wikipedia yourself.
      - antepodius 7y ago
        The baker's argument was that it wasn't the same service. They would have baked them a cake; but they didn't cakes with "jim and john's wedding" written on them, in the same way you wouldn't bake a cake with the 14 words on it, even if you'd bake a cake for Richard Spencer.
        DonHopkins 7y ago
        I don't bake cakes for Nazis, no matter how many words they want on it. Simple as that. Not even cupcakes. No nuances. It's pretty obvious when the baker and their supporters start bending over backwards to make nuanced hypothetical situations and ridiculous unbelievable qualifications, that they aren't making good faith arguments. If their best and most honest argument is that their bible told them to be intolerant bigots, then that's their problem for choosing to take their marching orders from that particular bible, while choosing to do business in that particular state which bans discrimination. The fact that your bible tells you to do something illegal is certainly no excuse for stoning your wife to death or killing gays, either. https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-bible-instagram-20160218-story.html https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-bible... So we should have the conversation in which everyone has to make the best arguments they can, instead of trying to go recursively meta with the Paradox of Tolerance, accusing the gays of being intolerant of the baker's intolerance. Simply judge them all on the merits of their best arguments and intellectual honesty and willingness to address valid counter-arguments.
        antepodius 7y ago
        I see you saying things like 'judge them by the merits of their arguments', and 'intellectual honesty'. But the problem is, I don't trust that you're intellectually honest. I don't think you actually do much logical evaluation when it comes to a case like this; you're already predisposed towards being on the side of the gay guys, and not liking the christians. Well, fine. But I don't believe that you're coming to your conclusions through reason and logic, as you claim to; my impression is that you're just declaring that the chain of evil obviously ends with the people you didn't like to begin with, and their arguments don't need to be refuted because they're not in good faith. Meanwhile, it's alright for you to categorically refuse to give service to someone for another kind of social identity. Fine... I just don't get the feeling I should rely on you as a source of 'good faith' arguments about this stuff. You seem to have a pretty big axe to grind.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - krick 7y ago
    How so? Nobody invited them into his bakery.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    It isn't irrational because every human being involved experiences a different intolerant act as their first intolerant act. The baker experiences the customer as committing the first intolerance to him. The customer experiences the baker as committing the first intolerance to him. There is no global ordering of intolerant events. This is basically the CAP problem. Every node (or human) sees their own version of the database (or the world) unless all humans coordinate with all other humans (aka impossible).
afiori 7y ago
what if the "unprompted on someone else" is wrong?
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Then you have a discussion about whether that is right or wrong, instead of having a discussion about how recursively meta you can go with "intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of ...". Call it the "no recursion" rule. Case in point: The baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of gays. That is unjustified and wrong. The gay couple who sues the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of intolerance. That is justified and right. The baker is unjustified and wrong to complain about the gay couple's intolerance of his intolerance, because he was unjustifiably intolerant himself, first.
  - afiori 7y ago
    Ok, let me be facetious. Take the baker situation and push it to full overdrive. Let's say the baker was a victim of sexual abuse and the client was asking to bake a cake rape-themed. (Not in support, you can suppose it was a replica for a documentary let's say). The baker refuses, the client sues, who is the first intolerant? Another case, a client enter the shop of a muslim baker and asks for a depiction of Allah on a cake. Who is the first intolerant? Maybe you have answer for all such situations, but how confident are you that a majority agrees in all cases?
    - sinsterizme 7y ago
      I think both these cases are fundamentally different -- the baker can refuse to bake a certain type of cake, on the grounds of religious expression clashing with the cake he is making. However, it's different if he refuses service on the grounds of the type of people he is making the cake for.
      - afiori 7y ago
        and in the actual case the baker refused to write a message on the cake. he was fine with the clients and with the cake. He only objected to a custom message defying his belief. There are good arguments on both sides. (my stance is sort of about scale as in if he had enough employees to delegate or he was the only cake-maker there)
incongruity 7y ago
Is this confounded or bound up with things like fake news or bad science -- would I, if I owned a platform – call it π-Chan –be prohibited from banning users who espoused anti-vax ideas because I firmly believed they put society at risk (or whatever the justification may be)? I would, on the one hand, be strongly supported by science, but on the other intolerant of others' who have differing points of view. Would I be allowed to run my platform the way I wanted? Whose rights would prevail in that case?
- moate 7y ago
  The question is "who do you want to be your consumers" here. Both choices are PR choices. Legally, you're allowed to do either ("neutral platform" and "moderated discourse forum" are both things that are legally allowed to exist in the US at least). If you want to appease the free speech crowd, you let the anti-vaxers stay (Gratz, you're running a Chan!) If you want to appease the intelligent discourse crowd, you ban/moderate people who violate your TOS (Gratz, you're running something closer to Hacker News!)
wesammikhail 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea And if you can´t see why the above applies, maybe you ought not to use the word "straightforward" anymore because you are clearly not qualified to do so.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Is that the ideological opposite of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone ?
  - wesammikhail 7y ago
    kind of yea!
mensetmanusman 7y ago
Isn’t every choice the exclusion of the alternative?

The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.

irrational 7y ago

So, the gay couple coming to the baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding are the intolerant ones because they are the first intolerant action in the chain? Because you know that will be how it will be spun.

DonHopkins 7y ago
Congratulations on the apt handle. Your argument is irrational because it ignores the fact that the baker committed the first intolerant act in the chain, not the gay couple.
- educationdata 7y ago
  So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Absolutely: refusing to provide service to gays, when you provide the same services to other people just because they are not gay, is indeed literally intolerant, without your scare-quotes or any other qualification. What's so hard for you to understand about that? If you're trying to argue for some slippery weaselly nuanced non-standard definition of "intolerant" which excludes bigoted bakers that you just pulled out of your butt, remember that it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and also excuses gay couples for not tolerating homophobic bakers. It's not my responsibility to provide you with the standard definitions of common English words, when you're obviously capable of googling them yourself, and obviously misunderstanding them on purpose, and obviously not arguing in good faith. Look it up on Wikipedia yourself.
    - antepodius 7y ago
      The baker's argument was that it wasn't the same service. They would have baked them a cake; but they didn't cakes with "jim and john's wedding" written on them, in the same way you wouldn't bake a cake with the 14 words on it, even if you'd bake a cake for Richard Spencer.
      - DonHopkins 7y ago
        I don't bake cakes for Nazis, no matter how many words they want on it. Simple as that. Not even cupcakes. No nuances. It's pretty obvious when the baker and their supporters start bending over backwards to make nuanced hypothetical situations and ridiculous unbelievable qualifications, that they aren't making good faith arguments. If their best and most honest argument is that their bible told them to be intolerant bigots, then that's their problem for choosing to take their marching orders from that particular bible, while choosing to do business in that particular state which bans discrimination. The fact that your bible tells you to do something illegal is certainly no excuse for stoning your wife to death or killing gays, either. https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-bible-instagram-20160218-story.html https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-bible... So we should have the conversation in which everyone has to make the best arguments they can, instead of trying to go recursively meta with the Paradox of Tolerance, accusing the gays of being intolerant of the baker's intolerance. Simply judge them all on the merits of their best arguments and intellectual honesty and willingness to address valid counter-arguments.
        antepodius 7y ago
        I see you saying things like 'judge them by the merits of their arguments', and 'intellectual honesty'. But the problem is, I don't trust that you're intellectually honest. I don't think you actually do much logical evaluation when it comes to a case like this; you're already predisposed towards being on the side of the gay guys, and not liking the christians. Well, fine. But I don't believe that you're coming to your conclusions through reason and logic, as you claim to; my impression is that you're just declaring that the chain of evil obviously ends with the people you didn't like to begin with, and their arguments don't need to be refuted because they're not in good faith. Meanwhile, it's alright for you to categorically refuse to give service to someone for another kind of social identity. Fine... I just don't get the feeling I should rely on you as a source of 'good faith' arguments about this stuff. You seem to have a pretty big axe to grind.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- krick 7y ago
  How so? Nobody invited them into his bakery.
- imtringued 7y ago
  It isn't irrational because every human being involved experiences a different intolerant act as their first intolerant act. The baker experiences the customer as committing the first intolerance to him. The customer experiences the baker as committing the first intolerance to him. There is no global ordering of intolerant events. This is basically the CAP problem. Every node (or human) sees their own version of the database (or the world) unless all humans coordinate with all other humans (aka impossible).

afiori 7y ago

what if the "unprompted on someone else" is wrong?

DonHopkins 7y ago
Then you have a discussion about whether that is right or wrong, instead of having a discussion about how recursively meta you can go with "intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of ...". Call it the "no recursion" rule. Case in point: The baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of gays. That is unjustified and wrong. The gay couple who sues the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of intolerance. That is justified and right. The baker is unjustified and wrong to complain about the gay couple's intolerance of his intolerance, because he was unjustifiably intolerant himself, first.
- afiori 7y ago
  Ok, let me be facetious. Take the baker situation and push it to full overdrive. Let's say the baker was a victim of sexual abuse and the client was asking to bake a cake rape-themed. (Not in support, you can suppose it was a replica for a documentary let's say). The baker refuses, the client sues, who is the first intolerant? Another case, a client enter the shop of a muslim baker and asks for a depiction of Allah on a cake. Who is the first intolerant? Maybe you have answer for all such situations, but how confident are you that a majority agrees in all cases?
  - sinsterizme 7y ago
    I think both these cases are fundamentally different -- the baker can refuse to bake a certain type of cake, on the grounds of religious expression clashing with the cake he is making. However, it's different if he refuses service on the grounds of the type of people he is making the cake for.
    - afiori 7y ago
      and in the actual case the baker refused to write a message on the cake. he was fine with the clients and with the cake. He only objected to a custom message defying his belief. There are good arguments on both sides. (my stance is sort of about scale as in if he had enough employees to delegate or he was the only cake-maker there)

incongruity 7y ago

Is this confounded or bound up with things like fake news or bad science -- would I, if I owned a platform – call it π-Chan –be prohibited from banning users who espoused anti-vax ideas because I firmly believed they put society at risk (or whatever the justification may be)? I would, on the one hand, be strongly supported by science, but on the other intolerant of others' who have differing points of view. Would I be allowed to run my platform the way I wanted? Whose rights would prevail in that case?

moate 7y ago
The question is "who do you want to be your consumers" here. Both choices are PR choices. Legally, you're allowed to do either ("neutral platform" and "moderated discourse forum" are both things that are legally allowed to exist in the US at least). If you want to appease the free speech crowd, you let the anti-vaxers stay (Gratz, you're running a Chan!) If you want to appease the intelligent discourse crowd, you ban/moderate people who violate your TOS (Gratz, you're running something closer to Hacker News!)

wesammikhail 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea And if you can´t see why the above applies, maybe you ought not to use the word "straightforward" anymore because you are clearly not qualified to do so.

DonHopkins 7y ago
Is that the ideological opposite of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone ?
- wesammikhail 7y ago
  kind of yea!

mensetmanusman 7y ago

Isn’t every choice the exclusion of the alternative?