3 ms·

Some things are beyond the pale. Actions, and opinions, have consequences. This has always been the case, and I don't think it's a bad thing - there should be

Some things are beyond the pale. Actions, and opinions, have consequences. This has always been the case, and I don't think it's a bad thing - there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm. I would hope a vocal majority would oppose a racist white nationalist like Yarvin.

daxorid 7y ago
That's a fine argument, as far as it goes, but in practice it's applied spuriously, unevenly, and unfairly. One of the principals involved in getting Yarvin deplatformed from Strangeloop, Steve Klabnik, is a communist, supporting an ideology that is directly responsible for the murder of 40 million people, and indirectly responsible for another 70 million. Klabnik has spoken, without political interference, at plenty of conferences. If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed. But in practice, they are not.
- grey-area 7y ago
  If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed I disagree fundamentally with your definition of communism as presupposing mass-murder. Also your comparison with Nazis as somehow equivalent is extremely troubling. That extreme communist states have indulged in mass-murder (like many christian states, democratic states, tyrannical states, etc before them) doesn't mean it is an ideology of mass-murder, and it's extremely disingenuous to suggest it is.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm Here's the problem point: what do you mean by "advocating"? I'm all for not tolerating people who issue explicit calls to violence, but once you extend this to advocating or even talking about things that can be used by others to justify calls to violence, and attempt to remove that person, I think we should stop tolerating you because the paradox of tolerance applies recursively: the moment you go overboard with not tolerating the intolerant and start claiming collateral damage, it is you who's actively intolerant and needs to be removed to safeguard the society. I don't know much about Yarvin beyond what I picked up here and over at SSC, but I don't recall him ever advocating actual, explicit harm to anyone. Being wrong about something does not cross the "intolerance" line if it's not followed by advocating hurting people (or excluding them from society).
- chasing 7y ago
  > Being wrong about something does not cross the "intolerance" line if it's not followed by advocating hurting people (or excluding them from society). A little historical context: Treating black people as if they're "lower IQ" than white people has been the basis of hundreds of years of brutal oppression. Which is why people are extremely uncomfortable giving someone who espouses those sorts of views any power whatsoever. Oh, and fuck people who believe that. They're racist. They're wrong. And I don't want to be anywhere near them, personally or professionally. How's that for exercising my freedom of speech? If that makes me intolerant of dumb racists, whelp, I guess I'm intolerant.
- grey-area 7y ago
  Here's the problem point: what do you mean by "advocating"? I mean questioning their existence, their intelligence, or their rights based on criteria like race. I'm fine with not being tolerated by you if you're fine with nazis and white supremacists (as long as they're polite and not violent!).

daxorid 7y ago

That's a fine argument, as far as it goes, but in practice it's applied spuriously, unevenly, and unfairly. One of the principals involved in getting Yarvin deplatformed from Strangeloop, Steve Klabnik, is a communist, supporting an ideology that is directly responsible for the murder of 40 million people, and indirectly responsible for another 70 million. Klabnik has spoken, without political interference, at plenty of conferences. If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed. But in practice, they are not.

grey-area 7y ago
If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed I disagree fundamentally with your definition of communism as presupposing mass-murder. Also your comparison with Nazis as somehow equivalent is extremely troubling. That extreme communist states have indulged in mass-murder (like many christian states, democratic states, tyrannical states, etc before them) doesn't mean it is an ideology of mass-murder, and it's extremely disingenuous to suggest it is.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm Here's the problem point: what do you mean by "advocating"? I'm all for not tolerating people who issue explicit calls to violence, but once you extend this to advocating or even talking about things that can be used by others to justify calls to violence, and attempt to remove that person, I think we should stop tolerating you because the paradox of tolerance applies recursively: the moment you go overboard with not tolerating the intolerant and start claiming collateral damage, it is you who's actively intolerant and needs to be removed to safeguard the society. I don't know much about Yarvin beyond what I picked up here and over at SSC, but I don't recall him ever advocating actual, explicit harm to anyone. Being wrong about something does not cross the "intolerance" line if it's not followed by advocating hurting people (or excluding them from society).

chasing 7y ago
> Being wrong about something does not cross the "intolerance" line if it's not followed by advocating hurting people (or excluding them from society). A little historical context: Treating black people as if they're "lower IQ" than white people has been the basis of hundreds of years of brutal oppression. Which is why people are extremely uncomfortable giving someone who espouses those sorts of views any power whatsoever. Oh, and fuck people who believe that. They're racist. They're wrong. And I don't want to be anywhere near them, personally or professionally. How's that for exercising my freedom of speech? If that makes me intolerant of dumb racists, whelp, I guess I'm intolerant.
grey-area 7y ago
Here's the problem point: what do you mean by "advocating"? I mean questioning their existence, their intelligence, or their rights based on criteria like race. I'm fine with not being tolerated by you if you're fine with nazis and white supremacists (as long as they're polite and not violent!).