7 ms·

But, there is an available objective definition of "tolerate": as a peace treaty. You are tolerated as long as you tolerate. If you don't (as in, say, the case

But, there is an available objective definition of "tolerate": as a peace treaty. You are tolerated as long as you tolerate. If you don't (as in, say, the case of the KKK), well, by non-participation in the "treaty", you no longer have to be tolerated by anyone adhering to it. OFC, this doesn't work in all circumstances, but, perhaps, it should be applied in all circumstances in which it _could_.

gwbas1c 7y ago
Perhaps put you biases aside? There are white supremacists who don't think they're racist. (It's kind of like someone claiming they aren't homophobic but also opposing gay marriage.) It's a complicated subject. IMO, I don't see how someone can be a racist / homophobe in secret; thus I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker just to find out things like this.
- RangerScience 7y ago
  > Perhaps put you biases aside? I don't follow? Maybe try rephrasing? > can be a racist / homophobe in secret I can kind of see that, but, the KKK wears hoods? > I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker Hmm. I don't have an examined opinion on this, outside of general hesitation to go looking for problems for reasons such as confirmation bias and whatever the name is for what self-fulfilling-prophecies looks like this in kind of situation. Well, and maybe that if you're looking for justification you've already messed up. Just because you can somehow find a consolation prize doesn't mean you should have done something in the first pace.
  - gwbas1c 7y ago
    Because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you to justify immoral behavior. Edit: You don't need to tolerate bad behavior, but it goes both ways: You can't justify bad behavior in the name of policing other peoples' dumb actions. Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.
    - RangerScience 7y ago
      > because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you How do you differentiate between "biases" and "legitimate disagreement"? I do it by exploring how much attention someone's paid to they path they took to where they are. Biases generally present as short, unexamined paths. > Or: Two wrongs don't make a right. I would agree. Too much of justice is about negative incentives.
      - gwbas1c 7y ago
        Because I think you need to have more empathy for why people align themselves with causes you disagree with. If you have the time, I suggest reading "They Thought they Were Free," by Milton Meyer. It's a well-known book that tries to answer why generally "good" people joined or supported the Nazi party in pre-WWII Germany. It's been about a decade since I last read it, but I keep it on my shelf. What I remember, though, is that the reasons why Germans joined or supported the Nazi party vary quite greatly. I remember one passage about a man who basically liked dressing up in Nazi uniforms because he loved pageantry of Nazi rallies. Another was about some Jewish children who saw a Hitler Youth parade in a movie theater newsreel, and really wanted to join. It's well worth the read if you need to understand why hate groups are so attractive to some people. (Or, to basically "examine your biases" towards people who you have "legitimate disagreement")
        RangerScience 7y ago
        I've gotten my feet wet in terms of understanding that kind of thing, but not really gotten into it. Thanks for the book recommendation! That said, as legit as your recommendations are, I don't see how this answers my question: How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement?
        gwbas1c 7y ago
        > How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement? Neutral 3rd party? But then how do you know the party is neutral?
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  Are the world famous #1 gay couple Dolce and Gabbana homophobic? They oppose gay marriage, but in your American culture there are only two ways of life, you pick Republicans or Democrats and run with whatever their ministries of truth spew out.
  - mike00632 7y ago
    Try to elaborate on why they are against gays marrying without the reasoning sounding homophobic.
    - username90 7y ago
      It is a motte and bailey argument, most people agree with gays having access to legal marriage, the contentious part is religious marriage. Should we force preachers who don't believe that homosexuality is kosher to wed gay couples? A lot of people don't think so, and then they say they are against gay marriage even though they would be fine with legalizing them getting a legal marriage. For example, do you think that we should force Muslim Imams to wed gay couples? I believe that it would be a fairly controversial topic even in left-wing circles.
      - mike00632 7y ago
        The idea that gays are going around forcing religious people to marry them against their will is contrived and demonizing to gay people. Nobody forces someone to officiate their marriage. The question of gay marriage is entirely about the widespread legal ban on gay marriage and whether that is/was justified.
  - RangerScience 7y ago
    > in your American culture there are only two ways of life That might be the culture I come from, but it is not my culture, and I do not subscribe to it, claim responsibility for it, or claim ownership of it. Then again, there's not a lot of people in my culture, they're pretty spread out, and it's hard to get them together in one place to do our thing, soooo. America is a lot of different cultures. Most places are. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats
mindslight 7y ago
> you no longer have to be tolerated by anyone adhering to it. The point of tolerance is to tolerate. Just because you have managed to find an intolerant viewpoint that survives our current memetic filter, does not change the reality that you're the one preaching intolerance, right here. Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for marginalizing some outgroup. I don't think that stoking rage against backwards political ideas is virulent enough to end in killing fields per se, but even the current increased polarization is not good.
- RangerScience 7y ago
  > The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing. You can interpret "tolerance" differently. I will continue to practice the version where I tolerate you until you are intolerant, at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you. This is rescinding a "right", not requiring action. > Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for dehumanizing some outgroup This is a good point and I'll watch out for it. Rescinding tolerance does not have to equate with dehumanization... but yeah, I can see how that often leads there. Seems like an easy way to avoid it is, I could just stop tolerating bigotry, but still extend the compassion and tolerance that I am able to to bigots. Judge behavior rather than people. Which is... well, it's just good practice anyway.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    >at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you. Not op, but curious what actions or behavior you think becomes fair game.
    - RangerScience 7y ago

gwbas1c 7y ago

Perhaps put you biases aside? There are white supremacists who don't think they're racist. (It's kind of like someone claiming they aren't homophobic but also opposing gay marriage.) It's a complicated subject. IMO, I don't see how someone can be a racist / homophobe in secret; thus I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker just to find out things like this.

RangerScience 7y ago
> Perhaps put you biases aside? I don't follow? Maybe try rephrasing? > can be a racist / homophobe in secret I can kind of see that, but, the KKK wears hoods? > I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker Hmm. I don't have an examined opinion on this, outside of general hesitation to go looking for problems for reasons such as confirmation bias and whatever the name is for what self-fulfilling-prophecies looks like this in kind of situation. Well, and maybe that if you're looking for justification you've already messed up. Just because you can somehow find a consolation prize doesn't mean you should have done something in the first pace.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  Because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you to justify immoral behavior. Edit: You don't need to tolerate bad behavior, but it goes both ways: You can't justify bad behavior in the name of policing other peoples' dumb actions. Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.
  - RangerScience 7y ago
    > because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you How do you differentiate between "biases" and "legitimate disagreement"? I do it by exploring how much attention someone's paid to they path they took to where they are. Biases generally present as short, unexamined paths. > Or: Two wrongs don't make a right. I would agree. Too much of justice is about negative incentives.
    - gwbas1c 7y ago
      Because I think you need to have more empathy for why people align themselves with causes you disagree with. If you have the time, I suggest reading "They Thought they Were Free," by Milton Meyer. It's a well-known book that tries to answer why generally "good" people joined or supported the Nazi party in pre-WWII Germany. It's been about a decade since I last read it, but I keep it on my shelf. What I remember, though, is that the reasons why Germans joined or supported the Nazi party vary quite greatly. I remember one passage about a man who basically liked dressing up in Nazi uniforms because he loved pageantry of Nazi rallies. Another was about some Jewish children who saw a Hitler Youth parade in a movie theater newsreel, and really wanted to join. It's well worth the read if you need to understand why hate groups are so attractive to some people. (Or, to basically "examine your biases" towards people who you have "legitimate disagreement")
      - RangerScience 7y ago
        I've gotten my feet wet in terms of understanding that kind of thing, but not really gotten into it. Thanks for the book recommendation! That said, as legit as your recommendations are, I don't see how this answers my question: How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement?
        gwbas1c 7y ago
        > How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement? Neutral 3rd party? But then how do you know the party is neutral?
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
Are the world famous #1 gay couple Dolce and Gabbana homophobic? They oppose gay marriage, but in your American culture there are only two ways of life, you pick Republicans or Democrats and run with whatever their ministries of truth spew out.
- mike00632 7y ago
  Try to elaborate on why they are against gays marrying without the reasoning sounding homophobic.
  - username90 7y ago
    It is a motte and bailey argument, most people agree with gays having access to legal marriage, the contentious part is religious marriage. Should we force preachers who don't believe that homosexuality is kosher to wed gay couples? A lot of people don't think so, and then they say they are against gay marriage even though they would be fine with legalizing them getting a legal marriage. For example, do you think that we should force Muslim Imams to wed gay couples? I believe that it would be a fairly controversial topic even in left-wing circles.
    - mike00632 7y ago
      The idea that gays are going around forcing religious people to marry them against their will is contrived and demonizing to gay people. Nobody forces someone to officiate their marriage. The question of gay marriage is entirely about the widespread legal ban on gay marriage and whether that is/was justified.
- RangerScience 7y ago
  > in your American culture there are only two ways of life That might be the culture I come from, but it is not my culture, and I do not subscribe to it, claim responsibility for it, or claim ownership of it. Then again, there's not a lot of people in my culture, they're pretty spread out, and it's hard to get them together in one place to do our thing, soooo. America is a lot of different cultures. Most places are. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats

mindslight 7y ago

> you no longer have to be tolerated by anyone adhering to it. The point of tolerance is to tolerate. Just because you have managed to find an intolerant viewpoint that survives our current memetic filter, does not change the reality that you're the one preaching intolerance, right here. Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for marginalizing some outgroup. I don't think that stoking rage against backwards political ideas is virulent enough to end in killing fields per se, but even the current increased polarization is not good.

RangerScience 7y ago
> The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing. You can interpret "tolerance" differently. I will continue to practice the version where I tolerate you until you are intolerant, at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you. This is rescinding a "right", not requiring action. > Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for dehumanizing some outgroup This is a good point and I'll watch out for it. Rescinding tolerance does not have to equate with dehumanization... but yeah, I can see how that often leads there. Seems like an easy way to avoid it is, I could just stop tolerating bigotry, but still extend the compassion and tolerance that I am able to to bigots. Judge behavior rather than people. Which is... well, it's just good practice anyway.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  >at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you. Not op, but curious what actions or behavior you think becomes fair game.
  - RangerScience 7y ago