7 ms·

>Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. That invariably forces the political landscape to

by psbmt 7y ago

>Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. That invariably forces the political landscape to move to the left. Which, I guess, is the intended result of holding that point of view.

FussyZeus 7y ago
I'm completely fine with that until we have literally any logical or scientific reasons to oppose tolerance.
- wesammikhail 7y ago
  So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant? That, if anything, is the nature of ideological possession. What a weird view to hold. Besides, science and reason can tell you very little about morality as tolerance is a moral concept not a scientific one. In fact, science can make no moral claims as those by nature are value claims which by definition are the antithesis of the scientific method. So I have no idea how you intend on squaring that circle. And the fact that you are "completely fine" with what the parent said just goes to show how little consideration you have given the topic before making such an ideologically driven comment :/
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant? Yes. And since there is no reason or logic behind intolerance, I'm not seeing that as a risky bet of any sort. And you're right, I don't have consideration for this topic because there is no topic as far as I'm concerned. I used to be on the right, and I used to hold all kinds of cognitive dissonances in my head at once to explain the belief system therein. And yes, it made total sense to me at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of experience in life, I can say with complete confidence that I was 100% full of shit, indoctrinated into a moral system that has no basis in any kind of rational thought, that is largely based on fear and maintaining a status quo under which I benefitted greatly. There is no reason behind intolerance. There is bigotry, fear, oftentimes disgust, and occasionally just good old fashioned hate. But there is no reason, no logic, and certainly no science.
    - wesammikhail 7y ago
      > Yes. > ... risky bet... How can anyone possibly have a conversation with someone as radicalized as yourself? There is nothing I can say of value when your answer to: Would you become an intolerant evil man if presented the opportunity to? is "YES OFC! but there is a low chance of that happening atm..."
      - stevenhuang 7y ago
        > So if science and logic one day Keyword: if. Evidently you believe science and rationality is the path to evil. Why is that?
        wesammikhail 7y ago
        The question was, IF science would present him with the gift of intolerance (considering that he put science as the arbiter for moral truths), would he accept it? If Yes: he´s an ideologically driven twat. If No: why bring up science when it literally has 0 to do with the domain of value-claims? > "Evidently you believe science and rationality is the path to evil." I am not sure how you got there considering the fact that I am part of that group myself but yea... seems like the concept of an if/else statement is a bit too hard to grasp
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        If evidence-based thinking is radical to you then I'm not sure what to tell you.
- throwaway156503 7y ago
  This claim to logic or scientific reasoning in the face of not tolerating intolerance seems flawed and, to me, does not serve as a meaningful replacement for the subject of morality: Imagine you have a child, who is not yours, screaming in your ear at the nearby supermarket. You do not tolerate it. You are intolerant of it. At face value, with the paradox of tolerance in the form of "society must be intolerant of intolerance," you would need to hold to the position that society should not be tolerant of your intolerance to children screaming in your ear. You'd need to accept that it's acceptable for children to scream in your ear.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    Your example is flawed for the following reason: The child's right to scream ends where my right to peacefully exist in a public space begins. The child's act of screaming directly in my ear clearly violates my right and is thus intolerant of it.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      I would say this example is also flawed because children scream in public all the time. It's just... reality. Kids scream sometimes for any number of good or not good reasons and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do about disturbing everyone around them isn't going to solve anything.
      - pritambaral 7y ago
        > I would say this example is also flawed because ... 1. I do not present any "example". I present only a fact within the parent's example. 2. None of the reasons you cite in the continuation invalidate my claims. "Accept the reality" does not erase anyone's rights. > ... and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do ... I do not see where I said anything remotely related to making any child's parent feel anything
        FussyZeus 7y ago
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        > People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? No. Because not feeding your children is not speech.
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >Because not feeding your children is not speech. For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though. Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? If we agree with you that all intolerant speech except for speech which is intolerant of intolerance should be prohibited, why should such speech not be prohibited, when X != "intolerant speech"?
        FussyZeus 7y ago
        > Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like: "Parents must feed their children" Into a ridiculous alike of: "We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children" Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech. The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question: 2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry. Questions?
Maarten88 7y ago
Because the truth has a liberal bias? What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?
- psbmt 7y ago
  Practical example: we shouldn't accept immigrants into our country (whatever the country is). Even for economical reasons. Even if there are no jobs for them. Even if there's no infrastructure to support them. Ooops, intolerant. Thoughtcrime. Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    > Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are. > Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights. Whatever their own reasons (religion or otherwise), they are their own and not of their targets. Thank you for providing such clear examples; it is clear one of these is actually intolerant.
    - psbmt 7y ago
      Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant. Isn't this what this thread is all about?
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months. If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident? If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter? Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy? This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.

by psbmt 7y ago

FussyZeus 7y ago

I'm completely fine with that until we have literally any logical or scientific reasons to oppose tolerance.

wesammikhail 7y ago
So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant? That, if anything, is the nature of ideological possession. What a weird view to hold. Besides, science and reason can tell you very little about morality as tolerance is a moral concept not a scientific one. In fact, science can make no moral claims as those by nature are value claims which by definition are the antithesis of the scientific method. So I have no idea how you intend on squaring that circle. And the fact that you are "completely fine" with what the parent said just goes to show how little consideration you have given the topic before making such an ideologically driven comment :/
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant? Yes. And since there is no reason or logic behind intolerance, I'm not seeing that as a risky bet of any sort. And you're right, I don't have consideration for this topic because there is no topic as far as I'm concerned. I used to be on the right, and I used to hold all kinds of cognitive dissonances in my head at once to explain the belief system therein. And yes, it made total sense to me at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of experience in life, I can say with complete confidence that I was 100% full of shit, indoctrinated into a moral system that has no basis in any kind of rational thought, that is largely based on fear and maintaining a status quo under which I benefitted greatly. There is no reason behind intolerance. There is bigotry, fear, oftentimes disgust, and occasionally just good old fashioned hate. But there is no reason, no logic, and certainly no science.
  - wesammikhail 7y ago
    > Yes. > ... risky bet... How can anyone possibly have a conversation with someone as radicalized as yourself? There is nothing I can say of value when your answer to: Would you become an intolerant evil man if presented the opportunity to? is "YES OFC! but there is a low chance of that happening atm..."
    - stevenhuang 7y ago
      > So if science and logic one day Keyword: if. Evidently you believe science and rationality is the path to evil. Why is that?
      - wesammikhail 7y ago
        The question was, IF science would present him with the gift of intolerance (considering that he put science as the arbiter for moral truths), would he accept it? If Yes: he´s an ideologically driven twat. If No: why bring up science when it literally has 0 to do with the domain of value-claims? > "Evidently you believe science and rationality is the path to evil." I am not sure how you got there considering the fact that I am part of that group myself but yea... seems like the concept of an if/else statement is a bit too hard to grasp
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      If evidence-based thinking is radical to you then I'm not sure what to tell you.
throwaway156503 7y ago
This claim to logic or scientific reasoning in the face of not tolerating intolerance seems flawed and, to me, does not serve as a meaningful replacement for the subject of morality: Imagine you have a child, who is not yours, screaming in your ear at the nearby supermarket. You do not tolerate it. You are intolerant of it. At face value, with the paradox of tolerance in the form of "society must be intolerant of intolerance," you would need to hold to the position that society should not be tolerant of your intolerance to children screaming in your ear. You'd need to accept that it's acceptable for children to scream in your ear.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  Your example is flawed for the following reason: The child's right to scream ends where my right to peacefully exist in a public space begins. The child's act of screaming directly in my ear clearly violates my right and is thus intolerant of it.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    I would say this example is also flawed because children scream in public all the time. It's just... reality. Kids scream sometimes for any number of good or not good reasons and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do about disturbing everyone around them isn't going to solve anything.
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      > I would say this example is also flawed because ... 1. I do not present any "example". I present only a fact within the parent's example. 2. None of the reasons you cite in the continuation invalidate my claims. "Accept the reality" does not erase anyone's rights. > ... and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do ... I do not see where I said anything remotely related to making any child's parent feel anything
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      > People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? No. Because not feeding your children is not speech.
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >Because not feeding your children is not speech. For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though. Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? If we agree with you that all intolerant speech except for speech which is intolerant of intolerance should be prohibited, why should such speech not be prohibited, when X != "intolerant speech"?
        FussyZeus 7y ago
        > Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like: "Parents must feed their children" Into a ridiculous alike of: "We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children" Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech. The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question: 2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry. Questions?

Maarten88 7y ago

Because the truth has a liberal bias? What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?

psbmt 7y ago
Practical example: we shouldn't accept immigrants into our country (whatever the country is). Even for economical reasons. Even if there are no jobs for them. Even if there's no infrastructure to support them. Ooops, intolerant. Thoughtcrime. Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  > Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are. > Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights. Whatever their own reasons (religion or otherwise), they are their own and not of their targets. Thank you for providing such clear examples; it is clear one of these is actually intolerant.
  - psbmt 7y ago
    Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant. Isn't this what this thread is all about?
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months. If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident? If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter? Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy? This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.