3 ms·

>if roughly half of the country (or your state) vote for one candidate and roughly half for the other, then it should imply that the opinions of both of these c

>if roughly half of the country (or your state) vote for one candidate and roughly half for the other, then it should imply that the opinions of both of these camps are roughly equally valid from the perspective of the society. Or, it implies that roughly half of society is wrong. More than one genocidal dictator was originally elected by popular vote. We do not need to take as a premise that equal support implies equal value. >those people may be your neighbours and your colleagues and they have the same right to be there as you do See, this is exactly the problem. Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out.

PeterisP 5y ago
Sure, mainstream opinions may be wrong, that often happens. However, they're still mainstream opinions, not a few rare extremists that can be just pushed out to edges and excluded. So you can disagree with their wrong opinions, and work to change their mind, but until they do - and even if they don't - in the workplace, you have to be able to work together with people strongly holding those wrong opinions; however wrong these peoople are, they should have equal rights to you. (I mean, weren't you also suggesting throwing out some people off workplaces because of their views?) And one definitely can advocate for tolerance for the intolerant as well - IIRC Jefferson explitly argued that we should, Popper argues that it won't turn out well and we shouldn't, I'd probably argue for something like John Rawl's position which is essentially tolerance up until actual imminent threat to physical security or perserveration of key institutions, i.e. intolerance of intolerant only as an extraordinary measure, but there are many reasonable arguments about this, there's no consensus agreement on any solution to the paradox of tolerance.
- GeneralMayhem 5y ago
  You're conflating the practical and the moral. In practice, yes, you often have to hold your nose and work with all manner of odious people. That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be, or that those people are just as right. The ideal would be for such people not to exist, and we have to figure out how to get along in a world where they do; I think that's qualitatively different, even if we end up with roughly the same practical day-to-day experience either way. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or celebration.
tha0xb1 5y ago
>Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. Left-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. The amount of blatant racism from SJWs creating "safe spaces" free of straight white males is disgusting. Identity politics peddled by leftists is literally what you've described.

PeterisP 5y ago

Sure, mainstream opinions may be wrong, that often happens. However, they're still mainstream opinions, not a few rare extremists that can be just pushed out to edges and excluded. So you can disagree with their wrong opinions, and work to change their mind, but until they do - and even if they don't - in the workplace, you have to be able to work together with people strongly holding those wrong opinions; however wrong these peoople are, they should have equal rights to you. (I mean, weren't you also suggesting throwing out some people off workplaces because of their views?) And one definitely can advocate for tolerance for the intolerant as well - IIRC Jefferson explitly argued that we should, Popper argues that it won't turn out well and we shouldn't, I'd probably argue for something like John Rawl's position which is essentially tolerance up until actual imminent threat to physical security or perserveration of key institutions, i.e. intolerance of intolerant only as an extraordinary measure, but there are many reasonable arguments about this, there's no consensus agreement on any solution to the paradox of tolerance.

GeneralMayhem 5y ago
You're conflating the practical and the moral. In practice, yes, you often have to hold your nose and work with all manner of odious people. That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be, or that those people are just as right. The ideal would be for such people not to exist, and we have to figure out how to get along in a world where they do; I think that's qualitatively different, even if we end up with roughly the same practical day-to-day experience either way. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or celebration.

tha0xb1 5y ago

>Right-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. Left-wing cultural opinions tend to define certain groups of people as not having the same right to be there. You cannot simultaneously advocate for tolerance and be totally okay as just a minor difference of opinion with the other side saying that some people should be thrown out. The amount of blatant racism from SJWs creating "safe spaces" free of straight white males is disgusting. Identity politics peddled by leftists is literally what you've described.