4 ms·

If you employ jack and jill, and jack tells jill he wants her to be killed, your relationship with jack is not isolated. The way you treat jack signals whether

If you employ jack and jill, and jack tells jill he wants her to be killed, your relationship with jack is not isolated. The way you treat jack signals whether you think it is important that jack hates jill. If you go grab a beer with jack and hang out on weekends, that sends a strong message. If you do nothing, that means its ok for jack to think jill should die and jill can fuck off. If you fire jack, you've sent a strong message in the other direction. This doesn't materially change if instead everyone finds out jack says these things to randos on a weird forum on weekends, unless jack decides to persuade people that those opinions are not representative of who he is. That would be an entirely different problem. A religious person who hangs out with pro-choice individuals is condoning that its ok to be pro choice. That's not the same thing as saying pro choice is the right ideology, but that it is a tolerable difference of opinion. It's basically tautological. If you refuse to accept pro-choice individuals and then hang out with them, you're just an inconsistent person. If you share employment with someone with a different religious background and that really bothers you, but you remain employed, you're ultimately deciding that being employed is more important to you than the virtue of your religious objections. No amount of politicalization will erase the fact that social reputation is an important part of how humans socialize.

em-bee 5y ago
If you refuse to accept pro-choice individuals and then hang out with them, you're just an inconsistent person you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. but that is wrong. i can, even must accept you as a person, even if i violently disagree with your opinions. if i don't then it would be impossible for us to have any dialogue, and for me to learn and understand why you have this opinion, and also for you to learn and understand mine. this idea that i must not associate with people who i disagree with is a core problem. we must get away from that otherwise we won't ever be able to resolve our differences. virtue of your religious objections there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated.
- klmadfejno 5y ago
  > you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. That's not what I said. The difference is whether you see an difference of opinion or something that is so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion. > there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated. And social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy
  - em-bee 5y ago
    so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that. social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy effective to do what? to change their mind? i'd like to see some evidence for that, because i don't believe it. ostracization only strengthens people in their opinions. it may make then unable to spread their ideas, but it doesn't help them change. ostracization also can end up hurting the wrong people. those who want to get out but can't because they don't have anyone helping them. it causes people who are actually unsure get stuck because they have noone showing them that there is another way. it causes people who realize that they are wrong being unable to get out because they have to fear to end up being completely isolated. they don't know that there will be others who welcome them. for all they know they have to expect to remain shunned because they are afraid could not convince anyone that they changed. (this is made even worse by todays climate of ostracizing people for things they said years ago. you said something racist on twitter once, and noone will ever believe that you learned your lesson for the rest of your life) changing your opinion and then finding new friends looks easy from the outside, but very risky from the inside. finding new friends, and then have those friends help you get out is the only way. it's up to us to be those friends. a problem here is also who decides who ought to be ostracized. i should have the right to associate with whoever i want. it's not anyone's place to decide whether i am capable of avoiding to get influenced by those people or not. if you are a close friend who knows me well, you may be able to tell if these people are getting to me or not and you can tell me, or help me avoid that influence. if you aren't already a friend, then your only option is to become my friend and find out. and if necessary help me understand that these people are influencing me. but if you ostracize me because i am not doing what you think i should, then you will achieve the opposite of what you set out to do. you see, it's friends all the way down. and all the way up. the only way to change the world, is to change its people, one person at a time. ostracization leads to disunity, and disunity leads to war. the well-being of the worlds society, its peace and security can not be achieved if we keep ostracizing each other.

em-bee 5y ago

If you refuse to accept pro-choice individuals and then hang out with them, you're just an inconsistent person you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. but that is wrong. i can, even must accept you as a person, even if i violently disagree with your opinions. if i don't then it would be impossible for us to have any dialogue, and for me to learn and understand why you have this opinion, and also for you to learn and understand mine. this idea that i must not associate with people who i disagree with is a core problem. we must get away from that otherwise we won't ever be able to resolve our differences. virtue of your religious objections there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated.

klmadfejno 5y ago
> you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. That's not what I said. The difference is whether you see an difference of opinion or something that is so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion. > there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated. And social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy
- em-bee 5y ago
  so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that. social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy effective to do what? to change their mind? i'd like to see some evidence for that, because i don't believe it. ostracization only strengthens people in their opinions. it may make then unable to spread their ideas, but it doesn't help them change. ostracization also can end up hurting the wrong people. those who want to get out but can't because they don't have anyone helping them. it causes people who are actually unsure get stuck because they have noone showing them that there is another way. it causes people who realize that they are wrong being unable to get out because they have to fear to end up being completely isolated. they don't know that there will be others who welcome them. for all they know they have to expect to remain shunned because they are afraid could not convince anyone that they changed. (this is made even worse by todays climate of ostracizing people for things they said years ago. you said something racist on twitter once, and noone will ever believe that you learned your lesson for the rest of your life) changing your opinion and then finding new friends looks easy from the outside, but very risky from the inside. finding new friends, and then have those friends help you get out is the only way. it's up to us to be those friends. a problem here is also who decides who ought to be ostracized. i should have the right to associate with whoever i want. it's not anyone's place to decide whether i am capable of avoiding to get influenced by those people or not. if you are a close friend who knows me well, you may be able to tell if these people are getting to me or not and you can tell me, or help me avoid that influence. if you aren't already a friend, then your only option is to become my friend and find out. and if necessary help me understand that these people are influencing me. but if you ostracize me because i am not doing what you think i should, then you will achieve the opposite of what you set out to do. you see, it's friends all the way down. and all the way up. the only way to change the world, is to change its people, one person at a time. ostracization leads to disunity, and disunity leads to war. the well-being of the worlds society, its peace and security can not be achieved if we keep ostracizing each other.