5 ms·

I'm genuinely struggling to understand here, because on one hand you talk about tolerance being a difficult thing where we should tolerate the viewpoints of oth

I'm genuinely struggling to understand here, because on one hand you talk about tolerance being a difficult thing where we should tolerate the viewpoints of others. On the other hand you're expressing that saying somethign hateful might have political and social consequences. But I was under the impression that, in your view, saying hateful things and recieving a social consequence as a result of your hate is a sign of an intolerant society.

Kalium 7y ago
Political and social consequences as distinct from legal or physical ones. Voters don't always like their candidates being hateful. I tend to drop racist friends. I still think racists deserve emergency medical care and effective fire departments, though.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Right, so in this case, is it okay that racists are fired or similar? How does this relate to the tolerating of other viewpoints in this case?
  - Kalium 7y ago
    I'm quite certain I work with some racists - my employer is too large and diverse for the number to be zero. As long as they keep their mouths shut in the office, I'm more concerned with whether or not they're good at their jobs.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      That wasn't my question, though.
      - Kalium 7y ago
        If they keep their mouths shut and are good at their jobs, I don't see why they should be fired for their private views. If they want to run their racist mouth at work, they might be fired for it.
        dragontamer 7y ago
        > If they want to run their racist mouth at work, they might be fired for it. That's all we want. For people to be fired when they mouth-off racist views in the workplace. Aka: being intolerant of intolerance. We can't be thought-police, no one has a mind-reading device. The best we can hope for is to kick people out when they demonstrate themselves to be an intolerant person.
        Kalium 7y ago
        Based on your comments, it seems to me that you want a great deal more than people to be fired for violating corporate policy. Perhaps I have misread you?
        dragontamer 7y ago
        Lets put it this way: I have no problem with the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki. The ultimate solution: killing leading figures of dangerous philosophies, should only be used in times of war. (And the USA is certainly "at war" with extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeda). I don't believe we are "at war" with white-nationalism. We are certainly not at the point where we should be imprisoning or killing people, yet. But I do believe we are at the point where we should seriously be considering to take down their websites and fire them from our workplaces. The general hope is to clamp down on the philosophy and hamper them, so that this issue doesn't grow into an "open war" situation. One side has already demonstrated a willingness to spill blood on the matter, so we are marching closer and closer to violence on this issue. There was a time when we could hope for better tolerance. But unfortunately, we're at the point where we need to be seriously considering our "strong soft-options": censorship, website bans, propaganda, infiltration / counter-intelligence, and spy-games, and other such tools. -------- Ex: I HOPE we have tasked the FBI to infiltrate white-nationalist websites, not only to keep tabs on them but also maybe try to grow into leadership positions within white-nationalist groups. Full on infiltration / spy-games need to be going on (if they haven't happened already). This is the least we can do in the wake of the El Paso shooter, especially since other political options (ex: background checks) seem out of reach. ---------- Note: Martin Luther King Jr. was subject to this kind of infiltration. This is literally the FBI's job: to infiltrate groups within the USA, keep tabs on influential figures who might be dangerous. Its unsavory, but only through infiltration can you figure out who is dangerous, and who is safe.

Kalium 7y ago

Political and social consequences as distinct from legal or physical ones. Voters don't always like their candidates being hateful. I tend to drop racist friends. I still think racists deserve emergency medical care and effective fire departments, though.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Right, so in this case, is it okay that racists are fired or similar? How does this relate to the tolerating of other viewpoints in this case?
- Kalium 7y ago
  I'm quite certain I work with some racists - my employer is too large and diverse for the number to be zero. As long as they keep their mouths shut in the office, I'm more concerned with whether or not they're good at their jobs.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    That wasn't my question, though.
    - Kalium 7y ago
      If they keep their mouths shut and are good at their jobs, I don't see why they should be fired for their private views. If they want to run their racist mouth at work, they might be fired for it.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        > If they want to run their racist mouth at work, they might be fired for it. That's all we want. For people to be fired when they mouth-off racist views in the workplace. Aka: being intolerant of intolerance. We can't be thought-police, no one has a mind-reading device. The best we can hope for is to kick people out when they demonstrate themselves to be an intolerant person.
        Kalium 7y ago
        Based on your comments, it seems to me that you want a great deal more than people to be fired for violating corporate policy. Perhaps I have misread you?
        dragontamer 7y ago
        Lets put it this way: I have no problem with the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki. The ultimate solution: killing leading figures of dangerous philosophies, should only be used in times of war. (And the USA is certainly "at war" with extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeda). I don't believe we are "at war" with white-nationalism. We are certainly not at the point where we should be imprisoning or killing people, yet. But I do believe we are at the point where we should seriously be considering to take down their websites and fire them from our workplaces. The general hope is to clamp down on the philosophy and hamper them, so that this issue doesn't grow into an "open war" situation. One side has already demonstrated a willingness to spill blood on the matter, so we are marching closer and closer to violence on this issue. There was a time when we could hope for better tolerance. But unfortunately, we're at the point where we need to be seriously considering our "strong soft-options": censorship, website bans, propaganda, infiltration / counter-intelligence, and spy-games, and other such tools. -------- Ex: I HOPE we have tasked the FBI to infiltrate white-nationalist websites, not only to keep tabs on them but also maybe try to grow into leadership positions within white-nationalist groups. Full on infiltration / spy-games need to be going on (if they haven't happened already). This is the least we can do in the wake of the El Paso shooter, especially since other political options (ex: background checks) seem out of reach. ---------- Note: Martin Luther King Jr. was subject to this kind of infiltration. This is literally the FBI's job: to infiltrate groups within the USA, keep tabs on influential figures who might be dangerous. Its unsavory, but only through infiltration can you figure out who is dangerous, and who is safe.