5 ms·

> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".

lordloki 5y ago
The people refusing dialog are the one who are most intolerant. That is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Exactly, they do not understand that when dialogue becomes forbidden, violence becomes inevitable.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    Violence becomes inevitable... because people are can't call black people subhuman in public without being censured? That's one hell of a take.
- echopurity 5y ago
  Racism and fundamentalism are refusals of dialog. That's the point.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  The very opposite. Honest debate requires being open to have your mind changed. If you believe that killing children is ethically unacceptable you cannot at the same time engage in a debate on when to kill children. There is a reason why legal systems have a distinction between crimes that allow debate, extenuating circumstances, statutory time limits and others don't have such wiggle room.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
This confuses cause and effect. Intolerance of intolerance isn't just political theatre. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the kinds of practical horrors that racism etc create in an otherwise liberal culture. Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder. There isn't really a paradox here. These are all very, very hard to justify on basic humanitarian grounds. And if someone wants to say "But communism" - it's not hard to agree that's often been a different brand of authoritarianism which takes root in countries with no liberal tradition. But the question remains - can "not communism" prove it's better? If it's justifying and accepting racism etc, I don't see that it can - because if you're on the wrong end of endemic social violence you get a very different view of your culture to the people who live in the comfortable and privileged part of it. And this is not an abstract debate, but something that is going to affect your lived experience, possibly on a daily basis.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > There isn't really a paradox here Correct. It's called paradox not because it's a logical impossibility but simply because some people *incorrectly* assume that a tolerant society should tolerate every behavior including those that harm others.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder. Those are real problems, yes. But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems. The author here claims that you shouldn't be allowed to question solutions, if you do then you are evil and should get rejected by society.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    >But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems. Why should we be having social discussions about whether or not genocide against a particular out-group is acceptable? Would the proposition that slaughtering an out-group be a good faith discourse about the best path forward for society? If not, why should we have that discussion at the cost of other discussions?
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Meta HN: How does a comment like this become undead after starting out dead?
    - klyrs 5y ago
      The vouch button
Banana699 5y ago
I like how people willingly misunderstand Popper's parable of tolerance and think it's a gotcha. Popper was talking about those people who refuse to participate in free speech in the first place, not just your favorite intellectual enemies.
goodpoint 5y ago
People equating inclusivity and totalitarianism while at the same time downvoting me to -4. Oh the irony.
- Banana699 5y ago
  >equating inclusivity and totalitarianism Mmm so true. When authorities and regimes imprison their enemies or fire them from jobs over opinions or brainwash their children or put them under constant surveillance, they are simply totalitarians being totalitarian, but when authorities and regimes you like do it, they are the manifestation of inclusivity descending into the material world to defend itself against the nasty totalitarians who need to be put in their place. I'm 100% sure that the only difference between the two is not just you affiliating with the latter, that's a completely irrelevant detail. Just like everybody knows that my religion is right and that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's mine off course. >downvoting me to -4 The Horror! what a massive injustice to good men and women everywhere that a database record somewhere contains your words next to a negative integer. Hacker news reader sure do have a lot of totalitarian tendencies for expressing contempt for your opinon in the savage and inhumane way that they did. It worries me a lot, keeps me up at night even. Have you considered, though, the possibility that hacker news readers decided that you're a threat to tolerance and therefore shouldn't be tolerated ? Surely that's a thing you would support and admire ?

lordloki 5y ago

The people refusing dialog are the one who are most intolerant. That is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.

koheripbal 5y ago
Exactly, they do not understand that when dialogue becomes forbidden, violence becomes inevitable.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  Violence becomes inevitable... because people are can't call black people subhuman in public without being censured? That's one hell of a take.
echopurity 5y ago
Racism and fundamentalism are refusals of dialog. That's the point.
goodpoint 5y ago
The very opposite. Honest debate requires being open to have your mind changed. If you believe that killing children is ethically unacceptable you cannot at the same time engage in a debate on when to kill children. There is a reason why legal systems have a distinction between crimes that allow debate, extenuating circumstances, statutory time limits and others don't have such wiggle room.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

This confuses cause and effect. Intolerance of intolerance isn't just political theatre. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the kinds of practical horrors that racism etc create in an otherwise liberal culture. Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder. There isn't really a paradox here. These are all very, very hard to justify on basic humanitarian grounds. And if someone wants to say "But communism" - it's not hard to agree that's often been a different brand of authoritarianism which takes root in countries with no liberal tradition. But the question remains - can "not communism" prove it's better? If it's justifying and accepting racism etc, I don't see that it can - because if you're on the wrong end of endemic social violence you get a very different view of your culture to the people who live in the comfortable and privileged part of it. And this is not an abstract debate, but something that is going to affect your lived experience, possibly on a daily basis.

goodpoint 5y ago
> There isn't really a paradox here Correct. It's called paradox not because it's a logical impossibility but simply because some people *incorrectly* assume that a tolerant society should tolerate every behavior including those that harm others.
Jensson 5y ago
> Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder. Those are real problems, yes. But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems. The author here claims that you shouldn't be allowed to question solutions, if you do then you are evil and should get rejected by society.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  >But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems. Why should we be having social discussions about whether or not genocide against a particular out-group is acceptable? Would the proposition that slaughtering an out-group be a good faith discourse about the best path forward for society? If not, why should we have that discussion at the cost of other discussions?
bopbeepboop 5y ago
[flagged]
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Meta HN: How does a comment like this become undead after starting out dead?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    The vouch button

Banana699 5y ago

I like how people willingly misunderstand Popper's parable of tolerance and think it's a gotcha. Popper was talking about those people who refuse to participate in free speech in the first place, not just your favorite intellectual enemies.

goodpoint 5y ago

People equating inclusivity and totalitarianism while at the same time downvoting me to -4. Oh the irony.

Banana699 5y ago
>equating inclusivity and totalitarianism Mmm so true. When authorities and regimes imprison their enemies or fire them from jobs over opinions or brainwash their children or put them under constant surveillance, they are simply totalitarians being totalitarian, but when authorities and regimes you like do it, they are the manifestation of inclusivity descending into the material world to defend itself against the nasty totalitarians who need to be put in their place. I'm 100% sure that the only difference between the two is not just you affiliating with the latter, that's a completely irrelevant detail. Just like everybody knows that my religion is right and that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's mine off course. >downvoting me to -4 The Horror! what a massive injustice to good men and women everywhere that a database record somewhere contains your words next to a negative integer. Hacker news reader sure do have a lot of totalitarian tendencies for expressing contempt for your opinon in the savage and inhumane way that they did. It worries me a lot, keeps me up at night even. Have you considered, though, the possibility that hacker news readers decided that you're a threat to tolerance and therefore shouldn't be tolerated ? Surely that's a thing you would support and admire ?