4 ms·

In that case please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22240363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22240363 > I don't enjoy being around this person" i

In that case please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22240363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22240363 > I don't enjoy being around this person" is more than reason enough to stop associating with someone So I should be able refuse to sell bread to someone with green hair, right? Or if they have a specific skin deformation. Now, what if all shops in an area refuse to sell food to people with these characteristics? > let alone more critical reasons such as "I don't want to be around someone who wants to deprive me of my rights as a person" In that case I will be able to pretty much ban anyone I want as the vast majority of people think that certain victimless crimes should be illegal (and thus they deprive me of my rights as a person), right?

JoshTriplett 7y ago
The lovely thing is that there's no symmetry required here. Excluding someone because they're intolerant/obnoxious/etc is very different than excluding someone because of who they are. It's perfectly consistent to consider it morally wrong to exclude someone because of who they are, and simultaneously consider it not wrong to exclude someone because of their prejudice. Those exclusions are not equivalent, and do not need to be treated as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance If you are looking to argue against that, feel free to do it with someone else.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  Considering your reply I presume that the answer to "So I should be able refuse to sell bread to someone with green hair, right? Or if they have a specific skin deformation." was "no". What did you think about "In that case I will be able to pretty much ban anyone I want as the vast majority of people think that certain victimless crimes should be illegal (and thus they deprive me of my rights as a person), right?" though? Should I be allowed to ban people from my shop who are against the freedom of speech or who support the illegalization of drugs? You seem to imply that it is ok to exclude people because of their opinions and speech but not due to their physical properties, gender identity, and attractions, is that right? In that case, do you think that Blizzard should have been allowed to do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy Alternatively, do you think that organisations such as wikipedia should be able to exclude pedophiles? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection, not child rapists, mind you) > Excluding someone because they're intolerant/obnoxious/etc is very different than excluding someone because of who they are What about excluding someone for believing or supporting piracy/the legalisation of all numbers/the freedom of speech? Or let's take it the other way, what about excluding someone for supporting lgbt rights? None of these opinions are in support of intolerance or obnoxiousness after all. > It's perfectly consistent to consider it morally wrong to exclude someone because of who they are, and simultaneously consider it not wrong to exclude someone because of their prejudice In that case, do you think that it should be ok to exclude someone for being prejudiced against pedophiles or for for being prejudiced against people who visit certain sites? One last question, since we are in a thread about 9 year olds being jailed for speech. Do you think that the whole village should be allowed to refuse to sell them food to them and to their families for expressing their opinion? > If you are looking to argue against that, feel free to do it with someone else. I am more interested in learning about your point of view rather than argue actually, which is why so far I have been posting only questions so far. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance I am aware of that actually. I would say that part of the paradox is that people that are against the freedom of speech get to express their opinion against it using their own freedom of speech. Offtopic: By the way, just noticed that you are a Principal Engineer at Intel (I just like checking out the profiles of people that I talk with, nothing personal). Are you people planing to open source ME and make it disableable yet? What about open sourcing the microcode that projects like coreboot use? (so that libreboot can be used with modern intel cpus)
  - dang 7y ago
    Bringing up someone's employer in the middle of a flamewar is a really bad idea. Maybe you just sincerely became more interested in whether ME will be open-sourced, but a general reader (let alone the person you've just been in a flamewar with) could easily read this in a much nastier way; so please don't go there. Also, please don't do this sort of flamewar on HN to begin with. It's tedious, predictable, and nasty. We're trying for a quite different sort of forum here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      > Bringing up someone's employer in the middle of a flamewar is a really bad idea Guess I should have sent an email instead. In general I expect my posts to be understood as they are. > Also, please don't do this sort of flamewar on HN to begin with If you told me what exactly I said in the post that I should try to avoid from now I would appreciate it. I did not post anything with the intention of being flamewar-y, rather my posts were just sincere questions.

JoshTriplett 7y ago

The lovely thing is that there's no symmetry required here. Excluding someone because they're intolerant/obnoxious/etc is very different than excluding someone because of who they are. It's perfectly consistent to consider it morally wrong to exclude someone because of who they are, and simultaneously consider it not wrong to exclude someone because of their prejudice. Those exclusions are not equivalent, and do not need to be treated as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance If you are looking to argue against that, feel free to do it with someone else.

dependenttypes 7y ago
Considering your reply I presume that the answer to "So I should be able refuse to sell bread to someone with green hair, right? Or if they have a specific skin deformation." was "no". What did you think about "In that case I will be able to pretty much ban anyone I want as the vast majority of people think that certain victimless crimes should be illegal (and thus they deprive me of my rights as a person), right?" though? Should I be allowed to ban people from my shop who are against the freedom of speech or who support the illegalization of drugs? You seem to imply that it is ok to exclude people because of their opinions and speech but not due to their physical properties, gender identity, and attractions, is that right? In that case, do you think that Blizzard should have been allowed to do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy Alternatively, do you think that organisations such as wikipedia should be able to exclude pedophiles? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection, not child rapists, mind you) > Excluding someone because they're intolerant/obnoxious/etc is very different than excluding someone because of who they are What about excluding someone for believing or supporting piracy/the legalisation of all numbers/the freedom of speech? Or let's take it the other way, what about excluding someone for supporting lgbt rights? None of these opinions are in support of intolerance or obnoxiousness after all. > It's perfectly consistent to consider it morally wrong to exclude someone because of who they are, and simultaneously consider it not wrong to exclude someone because of their prejudice In that case, do you think that it should be ok to exclude someone for being prejudiced against pedophiles or for for being prejudiced against people who visit certain sites? One last question, since we are in a thread about 9 year olds being jailed for speech. Do you think that the whole village should be allowed to refuse to sell them food to them and to their families for expressing their opinion? > If you are looking to argue against that, feel free to do it with someone else. I am more interested in learning about your point of view rather than argue actually, which is why so far I have been posting only questions so far. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance I am aware of that actually. I would say that part of the paradox is that people that are against the freedom of speech get to express their opinion against it using their own freedom of speech. Offtopic: By the way, just noticed that you are a Principal Engineer at Intel (I just like checking out the profiles of people that I talk with, nothing personal). Are you people planing to open source ME and make it disableable yet? What about open sourcing the microcode that projects like coreboot use? (so that libreboot can be used with modern intel cpus)
- dang 7y ago
  Bringing up someone's employer in the middle of a flamewar is a really bad idea. Maybe you just sincerely became more interested in whether ME will be open-sourced, but a general reader (let alone the person you've just been in a flamewar with) could easily read this in a much nastier way; so please don't go there. Also, please don't do this sort of flamewar on HN to begin with. It's tedious, predictable, and nasty. We're trying for a quite different sort of forum here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    > Bringing up someone's employer in the middle of a flamewar is a really bad idea Guess I should have sent an email instead. In general I expect my posts to be understood as they are. > Also, please don't do this sort of flamewar on HN to begin with If you told me what exactly I said in the post that I should try to avoid from now I would appreciate it. I did not post anything with the intention of being flamewar-y, rather my posts were just sincere questions.