3 ms·

>>What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. You can disagree with o

>>What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated.

mistermann 6y ago
>You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated. What is caught in the "Holocaust denier" net does not consist solely of people who outright deny it occurred - there are many shades of grey, opinions in this realm are highly dimensional. This isn't to say that censorship in this case isn't justified or fairly optimal (in achieving gross human happiness), but if a cause is just and righteous, it shouldn't present a highly distorted representation of objective reality, or refuse to vigorously defend it's assertions. If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality. If proponents of an ideology (censorship, in this case) are not willing or able to do that, then I would find it more palatable if everyone was just honest and acknowledge that a very rough approximation is being done, for reasons X,Y,Z - I think a fine argument could be made, and this way no fibs are being told.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >>If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality. The problem is that it is much easier to spread lies and misinformation than to contest and correct them. Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. This is especially true in this day and age where all it takes for something to reach massive audiences is a button click.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    This is indeed a problem, so acknowledge it as such. But do not use this problem as a justification for misrepresenting actual reality - that is dishonest. If your position is correct and righteous, misrepresenting reality should not be necessary. It is a rather sad and concerning state of affairs that there is such a widespread aversion to honesty on a site as normally clear-thinking as HN. As well, there seems to also be a very strong aversion to discussing this phenomenon (that people regularly misrepresent reality here) in the abstract. I am infinitely curious about this behavior, that is observable in large quantities. ------------------------------------------------- EDIT: FYI, I am only allowed a few posts per day here (overton window maintenance?), so I will have to put my answer to your child comment here as an edit... > Sorry, what exactly am I misrepresenting? This: >> You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated. The ~dispute regarding the holocaust does not consist of a simple binary of whether the event occurred, or not. There is all sorts of complexity and uncertainty (as is typically the case in reality, our recorded history of it, and alterations to that recorded history of historic events as time progresses)...and in turn, our individual perceptions of events (which we mistake for reality, as is always the case in every conversation of this type on HN, and elsewhere) are highly inconsistent with each other, as well as with that which physically occurred. So my question is: why describe it as if it is a simple binary? What is the motive for this misrepresentation? Might it be perhaps, with conscious intent or not, to persuade others to adopt your style of thinking and opinions? Just speculating of course - I am very interested in knowing the actual underlying reason of why there is such a strong aversion here on HN to discussing reality in its true, high dimensional nature. I speculate that: because we do not do this, it has real world effects similar to that which would be experienced if one wrote software on top of a specification that leaves out 3/4 of the actual complexity of the problem space. And so, I beat this same dead horse, day after day, hoping that some day one individual will be able to acknowledge that indeed, there is actually a horse in the room.
    - enraged_camel 6y ago
      Sorry, what exactly am I misrepresenting?
betwixthewires 6y ago
People can disagree with facts. They're wrong, they might be very ignorant, they might look incredibly stupid, but they can do it. They do it all the time, that is a fact.

mistermann 6y ago

>You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated. What is caught in the "Holocaust denier" net does not consist solely of people who outright deny it occurred - there are many shades of grey, opinions in this realm are highly dimensional. This isn't to say that censorship in this case isn't justified or fairly optimal (in achieving gross human happiness), but if a cause is just and righteous, it shouldn't present a highly distorted representation of objective reality, or refuse to vigorously defend it's assertions. If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality. If proponents of an ideology (censorship, in this case) are not willing or able to do that, then I would find it more palatable if everyone was just honest and acknowledge that a very rough approximation is being done, for reasons X,Y,Z - I think a fine argument could be made, and this way no fibs are being told.

enraged_camel 6y ago
>>If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality. The problem is that it is much easier to spread lies and misinformation than to contest and correct them. Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. This is especially true in this day and age where all it takes for something to reach massive audiences is a button click.
- mistermann 6y ago
  This is indeed a problem, so acknowledge it as such. But do not use this problem as a justification for misrepresenting actual reality - that is dishonest. If your position is correct and righteous, misrepresenting reality should not be necessary. It is a rather sad and concerning state of affairs that there is such a widespread aversion to honesty on a site as normally clear-thinking as HN. As well, there seems to also be a very strong aversion to discussing this phenomenon (that people regularly misrepresent reality here) in the abstract. I am infinitely curious about this behavior, that is observable in large quantities. ------------------------------------------------- EDIT: FYI, I am only allowed a few posts per day here (overton window maintenance?), so I will have to put my answer to your child comment here as an edit... > Sorry, what exactly am I misrepresenting? This: >> You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated. The ~dispute regarding the holocaust does not consist of a simple binary of whether the event occurred, or not. There is all sorts of complexity and uncertainty (as is typically the case in reality, our recorded history of it, and alterations to that recorded history of historic events as time progresses)...and in turn, our individual perceptions of events (which we mistake for reality, as is always the case in every conversation of this type on HN, and elsewhere) are highly inconsistent with each other, as well as with that which physically occurred. So my question is: why describe it as if it is a simple binary? What is the motive for this misrepresentation? Might it be perhaps, with conscious intent or not, to persuade others to adopt your style of thinking and opinions? Just speculating of course - I am very interested in knowing the actual underlying reason of why there is such a strong aversion here on HN to discussing reality in its true, high dimensional nature. I speculate that: because we do not do this, it has real world effects similar to that which would be experienced if one wrote software on top of a specification that leaves out 3/4 of the actual complexity of the problem space. And so, I beat this same dead horse, day after day, hoping that some day one individual will be able to acknowledge that indeed, there is actually a horse in the room.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    Sorry, what exactly am I misrepresenting?

betwixthewires 6y ago

People can disagree with facts. They're wrong, they might be very ignorant, they might look incredibly stupid, but they can do it. They do it all the time, that is a fact.