3 ms·

> If my opponent thinks I'm intolerant, then ME increasing my level of tolerance does NOTHING to fix the problem. Yes, it does. Responding to intolerance with

> If my opponent thinks I'm intolerant, then ME increasing my level of tolerance does NOTHING to fix the problem. Yes, it does. Responding to intolerance with tolerance provides the change (however slim) to engage with these people and change their views. Responding with intolerance of your own deprives you of this chance. The former offers some chance of change, however slim. The latter offers none. > Not if the other side down backs down first. Which is usually what happens. The problem is, the "other side" is thinking the exact same thing. Also, the way you frame tolerance as one "side" against another highlights the way people use "intolerance" just justification for the exclusion of the out-group. > Why should the onus be on ME to back down? The onus isn't on anyone to "back down" the onus is on society to foster a culture where the response to encountering someone with view they find heinous is to engage and try to bring them in alignment with society. > Yeah, its complicated. But play with the game-theory of the model. That's the current direction we're marching towards politically. My point is that your philosophy of "tolerate the opponent" does NOTHING to stop this game-theory matrix. My optimal move is to be intolerant, especially if my opponent is intolerant. No, it is not because we're all on the same team. By selecting the option that causes a net loss but a personal gain for yourself, you're leaving all of society worse off. The "other side" is still part of the society to which you belong, like it or not. I am seriously disturbed by this line of reasoning, the thought that it's better to leave all of society worse off as long as the "other side" is harmed more than "our side". The end result is that the two "sides' cannot coexist, and one either destroys or expels the other.

dragontamer 7y ago
As I've challenged other posters before... this whole discussion is taking place in reality. Your theories about peace and quiet are all nice and all, but it doesn't work in practice. Go hangout at Stormfront. Talk to white-nationalists. They're all gathering there, and you can go try to convince them to stop being racist if you so desire. This isn't some hypothetical la-la land. You literally can go to white-nationalist websites and talk with them and try to convince them to be otherwise more tolerant of others. ---------- In any case: I've got slanty eyes since my parents were from an East Asian country. I can't change how my eyes look like, I'm distinctively Asian (although I'm unable to speak or write in any language aside from English. I've lived here my whole life). I can change my viewpoints because I'm a rational person. But if white-nationalists make an enemy out of me, there's nothing I can do about it. I cant change my eyes or skin color. Fortunately for me, white-nationalists are more scared of other races than my race. But they're still not exactly welcoming of me either. --------- As I said before: how can My life (or society in general) get better if I become more tolerant of the white-nationalists who want to make America whiter and with less immigrants? They want to kick me out of the country (well, starting with Hispanics first. But I know I'm on their list). How am I supposed to "tolerate" that viewpoint? > I am seriously disturbed by this line of reasoning, the thought that it's better to leave all of society worse off as long as the "other side" is harmed more than "our side". The end result is that the two "sides' cannot coexist, and one either destroys or expels the other. Do you wish to "tolerate" white nationalism, and their philosophy to kick immigrants out of the country? To the point where some of them are going out to El Paso and literally shooting people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting This is what we are dealing with: > "In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion." There is no room for "tolerance" here. I'm sorry.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > As I said before: how can My life (or society in general) get better if I become more tolerant of the white-nationalists who want to make America whiter and with less immigrants? They want to kick me out of the country (well, starting with Hispanics first. But I know I'm on their list). How am I supposed to "tolerate" that viewpoint? Because if you do engage with them you can figure out why they think those things and try to change their views. By comparison if you behave intolerantly towards them, then they will become even more entrenched in their belief that immigrants do not tolerate whites, thus reinforcing their xenophobia. > Do you wish to "tolerate" white nationalism, and their philosophy to kick immigrants out of the country? To the point where some of them are going out to El Paso and literally shooting people: Speech and actions are two different things. People can talk about hanging wall Street bankers all they want, but that becomes illegal the moment that this becomes violence. Same with white nationalism or any other belief.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > Because if you do engage with them you can figure out why they think those things and try to change their views. Have you tried to do this? Because I've tried. It doesn't seem to work. > Speech and actions are two different things. Speech inspires actions. If you're smart about something, you'll want to stop bad behavior while its still "speech", and not yet an "action". > People can talk about hanging wall Street bankers all they want, but that becomes illegal the moment that this becomes violence. Maybe it should be illegal before the violence breaks out. You know, to prevent violence, instead of reacting to it.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > Have you tried to do this? Because I've tried. It doesn't seem to work. Yes, I have talked to many people that hold views that are labeled as "white nationalist" and engaging with them can change their views. Case in point, I managed to convince people to support immigration tied to employment. I sought to understand why this person opposed immigration, and learned that they feared that immigrants would become dependent on social services. So I made the point that immigration policy can be structure in a way to avoid state dependence. You often won't be able to make them pull a total 180, but you can usually make them more nuanced in their opinions. > Because I want to live here, a location I've lived my entire life, they believe that I "don't tolerate whites"? This is ridiculous on the face of it. You're right, it is ridiculous. But that's what they believe. And if you treat them with intolerance (which is what you've been trying to justify throughout this thread) you're only reinforcing that belief. > No, seriously. Go try arguing against a white nationalist for a while. Its utterly hopeless to get them to change their opinions. Not with this kind of attitude, it isn't. But actually try and engage meaningfully, understand why they believe the things they do, and show them that you are willing to tolerate them even though they don't want to tolerate you and the chances of changing their minds improves considerably. > Maybe it should be illegal before the violence breaks out. You know, to prevent violence, instead of reacting to it. You'll have to start by repealing the first amendment. And after you do, there will be people that will seek to label your views as violent and ban them.

dragontamer 7y ago

As I've challenged other posters before... this whole discussion is taking place in reality. Your theories about peace and quiet are all nice and all, but it doesn't work in practice. Go hangout at Stormfront. Talk to white-nationalists. They're all gathering there, and you can go try to convince them to stop being racist if you so desire. This isn't some hypothetical la-la land. You literally can go to white-nationalist websites and talk with them and try to convince them to be otherwise more tolerant of others. ---------- In any case: I've got slanty eyes since my parents were from an East Asian country. I can't change how my eyes look like, I'm distinctively Asian (although I'm unable to speak or write in any language aside from English. I've lived here my whole life). I can change my viewpoints because I'm a rational person. But if white-nationalists make an enemy out of me, there's nothing I can do about it. I cant change my eyes or skin color. Fortunately for me, white-nationalists are more scared of other races than my race. But they're still not exactly welcoming of me either. --------- As I said before: how can My life (or society in general) get better if I become more tolerant of the white-nationalists who want to make America whiter and with less immigrants? They want to kick me out of the country (well, starting with Hispanics first. But I know I'm on their list). How am I supposed to "tolerate" that viewpoint? > I am seriously disturbed by this line of reasoning, the thought that it's better to leave all of society worse off as long as the "other side" is harmed more than "our side". The end result is that the two "sides' cannot coexist, and one either destroys or expels the other. Do you wish to "tolerate" white nationalism, and their philosophy to kick immigrants out of the country? To the point where some of them are going out to El Paso and literally shooting people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting This is what we are dealing with: > "In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion." There is no room for "tolerance" here. I'm sorry.

manfredo 7y ago
> As I said before: how can My life (or society in general) get better if I become more tolerant of the white-nationalists who want to make America whiter and with less immigrants? They want to kick me out of the country (well, starting with Hispanics first. But I know I'm on their list). How am I supposed to "tolerate" that viewpoint? Because if you do engage with them you can figure out why they think those things and try to change their views. By comparison if you behave intolerantly towards them, then they will become even more entrenched in their belief that immigrants do not tolerate whites, thus reinforcing their xenophobia. > Do you wish to "tolerate" white nationalism, and their philosophy to kick immigrants out of the country? To the point where some of them are going out to El Paso and literally shooting people: Speech and actions are two different things. People can talk about hanging wall Street bankers all they want, but that becomes illegal the moment that this becomes violence. Same with white nationalism or any other belief.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > Because if you do engage with them you can figure out why they think those things and try to change their views. Have you tried to do this? Because I've tried. It doesn't seem to work. > Speech and actions are two different things. Speech inspires actions. If you're smart about something, you'll want to stop bad behavior while its still "speech", and not yet an "action". > People can talk about hanging wall Street bankers all they want, but that becomes illegal the moment that this becomes violence. Maybe it should be illegal before the violence breaks out. You know, to prevent violence, instead of reacting to it.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Have you tried to do this? Because I've tried. It doesn't seem to work. Yes, I have talked to many people that hold views that are labeled as "white nationalist" and engaging with them can change their views. Case in point, I managed to convince people to support immigration tied to employment. I sought to understand why this person opposed immigration, and learned that they feared that immigrants would become dependent on social services. So I made the point that immigration policy can be structure in a way to avoid state dependence. You often won't be able to make them pull a total 180, but you can usually make them more nuanced in their opinions. > Because I want to live here, a location I've lived my entire life, they believe that I "don't tolerate whites"? This is ridiculous on the face of it. You're right, it is ridiculous. But that's what they believe. And if you treat them with intolerance (which is what you've been trying to justify throughout this thread) you're only reinforcing that belief. > No, seriously. Go try arguing against a white nationalist for a while. Its utterly hopeless to get them to change their opinions. Not with this kind of attitude, it isn't. But actually try and engage meaningfully, understand why they believe the things they do, and show them that you are willing to tolerate them even though they don't want to tolerate you and the chances of changing their minds improves considerably. > Maybe it should be illegal before the violence breaks out. You know, to prevent violence, instead of reacting to it. You'll have to start by repealing the first amendment. And after you do, there will be people that will seek to label your views as violent and ban them.