3 ms·

It ends where it supports behavior that eliminates the ability to enable being tolerant. This isn't difficult.

Barrin92 7y ago
there's plenty of intolerant views that are widely held, many religious say that are part of a healthy discussion if you want to hear everyone's viewpoints. It seems a little weird to brush off the opinions of hundreds of millions of people as 'it isn't difficult'. It's really difficult. The intensity of disregard of political opinions concerning China hasn't anything to do with the opinions themselves, because I read way stranger stuff on HN every day. It's that it's an American website that puts much higher scrutiny on opinions held by perceived US adversaries.
- oldmandutch 7y ago
  And that’s as it should be. We should each be proud of, and willing to defend our country.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
Biases color this judgement so it is very hard to judge where it ends. Im about to say something to illustrate this bias please think before you react. Additionally I don't actually believe what I'm about to say. "The Holocaust wasn't that detrimental to society. This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree with my points in a civil way." The statement is neutral and civil but the word Holocaust ignites an incindiary bias that has no basis in logic because the logic behind why isn't even stated yet. Theoretically such a comment should not receive any downvotes based on the premise alone, yet knowing how people are, it will get voted down. Replace Holocaust with taxes, bitcoins, or a more neutral word and the votes will shift. This is the same kind of phenomenon that is affecting comments about the CCP. Your bias prevents you from recognizing what is civil and what is not.
- bordercases 7y ago
  I don't think your example is doing the work you think it is doing. Functionally it is doing something similar to what I am accounting for with the CCP, from the other end: "it's just my opinion man" is a hedge that attempts to reduce culpability for your statements and "feel free to disagree civilly" opens up an entire channel for you do disregard criticsm and many real forms of communication, if there is no clear standard on what civility means. Surely there can be one, but are you unbiased enough that you can follow it? It is not about civility or incivility. It is about facilitating real and valid criticsm. Supporting a state with explicit censorship policies and a track record of suppressing riots with violence as well as an active monopoly on communication and payment channels, which results in a lot of leverage on individual behavior, is antithetical to this purpose. Where the whatsboutism ends with the United States is that the United States has (thusfar) kept most criticsm-worthy acts on the record and still has no clear monopoly on the flow of information. It allows the existence of institutions that actively work against the policies of the government. That puts it on a relatively higher moral standing compared to the CCP as long as you care about such things as having a plurality of opinions. Where tolerance stops is where you support ending the game.

there's plenty of intolerant views that are widely held, many religious say that are part of a healthy discussion if you want to hear everyone's viewpoints. It seems a little weird to brush off the opinions of hundreds of millions of people as 'it isn't difficult'. It's really difficult. The intensity of disregard of political opinions concerning China hasn't anything to do with the opinions themselves, because I read way stranger stuff on HN every day. It's that it's an American website that puts much higher scrutiny on opinions held by perceived US adversaries.

oldmandutch 7y ago
And that’s as it should be. We should each be proud of, and willing to defend our country.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Biases color this judgement so it is very hard to judge where it ends. Im about to say something to illustrate this bias please think before you react. Additionally I don't actually believe what I'm about to say. "The Holocaust wasn't that detrimental to society. This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree with my points in a civil way." The statement is neutral and civil but the word Holocaust ignites an incindiary bias that has no basis in logic because the logic behind why isn't even stated yet. Theoretically such a comment should not receive any downvotes based on the premise alone, yet knowing how people are, it will get voted down. Replace Holocaust with taxes, bitcoins, or a more neutral word and the votes will shift. This is the same kind of phenomenon that is affecting comments about the CCP. Your bias prevents you from recognizing what is civil and what is not.

bordercases 7y ago
I don't think your example is doing the work you think it is doing. Functionally it is doing something similar to what I am accounting for with the CCP, from the other end: "it's just my opinion man" is a hedge that attempts to reduce culpability for your statements and "feel free to disagree civilly" opens up an entire channel for you do disregard criticsm and many real forms of communication, if there is no clear standard on what civility means. Surely there can be one, but are you unbiased enough that you can follow it? It is not about civility or incivility. It is about facilitating real and valid criticsm. Supporting a state with explicit censorship policies and a track record of suppressing riots with violence as well as an active monopoly on communication and payment channels, which results in a lot of leverage on individual behavior, is antithetical to this purpose. Where the whatsboutism ends with the United States is that the United States has (thusfar) kept most criticsm-worthy acts on the record and still has no clear monopoly on the flow of information. It allows the existence of institutions that actively work against the policies of the government. That puts it on a relatively higher moral standing compared to the CCP as long as you care about such things as having a plurality of opinions. Where tolerance stops is where you support ending the game.