5 ms·

I don't understand this. There are well-known arguments for not tolerating intolerant people. Do those who advocate for tolerating intolerant people act in go

by k__ 5y ago

I don't understand this. There are well-known arguments for not tolerating intolerant people. Do those who advocate for tolerating intolerant people act in good faith, or are they simply part of them?

JasonFruit 5y ago
Would you want a corporation or government to decide for you which of your neighbors you shouldn't tolerate, without letting you get to know them, or would you like to make an informed decision yourself?
- esotericimpl 5y ago
- jaegerpicker 5y ago
  No Corporation has decided anything like that. Corporations are responding to their customers requesting those users to not be tolerated. This isn't Twitter banning anyone because they want to. It's Twitter deciding that enough users have decided that tolerance has run its course. They were in response to campaigns of users to deplatform those who we consider harmful.
  - bluescrn 5y ago
    Corporations seem to be responding to tiny but very vocal mobs of activists. These groups don't necessarily represent the majority point of view.
    - jaegerpicker 5y ago
      Are you sure? I know a huge number of users that advocate for Users that expose bigoted views or misinformation to be de-platformed. See the recent Joe Rogan podcast push. That wasn't a tiny percentage of users.
seneca 5y ago
Arguments aren't axioms. Karl Popper is not some inherent authority.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
And this in turn makes you intolerant, and I won't tolerate this. Free speech is important and should be protected, even if k__ disagrees with what you said.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  This is actually a good point, and it's important to realize that even Karl Popper acknowledged this. He explicitly argues that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. The Paradox of Tolerance is more about acknowledging that limits to tolerance must exist somewhere than an actual argument for narrowing those limits.
grapeskin 5y ago
I accept the right of others to say things I find absolutely abhorrent because I recognize that I sometimes say things I believe to be perfectly rational and someone else finds intolerable. Fighting disagreeable speech with more free speech is harder than just banning it, but generations that follow will be better off for it. Just seeing the Russia v Ukraine conflict and seeing how one country can enforce a narrative by law and arrest people as being sympathizers of an “intolerant” regime should be enough to make people aware that regulating verbal “intolerance” is a bad idea.
- periphrasis 5y ago
  The irony of course being that the American political demographic, MAGA, with the biggest grievances regarding tech “censorship” also appear to be most willing to make excuses for or deny Russian war crimes.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    I can go on Twitter and see a lot of examples of this and generate that impression, but then I don’t see it in real life. What’s real? How do we know our perception of reality isn’t being distorted by algorithms and sampling bias?
    - periphrasis 5y ago
      The question would be a lot easier to resolve if the major MAGA thought leaders would stop making excuses for genocide. Anecdotally, my dad is MAGA-leaning right, and while he opposes the invasion and is happy to see the Russian army destroyed, his immediate response when I brought up the mass graves was “how much of that is propaganda though?”. Skepticism about what we are told about a war is always warranted, but right wing Americans are being actively persuaded right now to deny or doubt Russian war crimes despite overwhelming evidence.
      - briandear 5y ago
        What overwhelming evidence? At this point it’s allegations. The crimes haven’t actually been investigated. They should be. But “overwhelming evidence” should be rephrased as “lots of allegations.”
zozbot234 5y ago
There are also arguments for avoiding the breakdown of communication by expressly favoring the most strongly censored and unfashionable ideas at any given time and striving to platform them everywhere, even irrespective of their actual merits. This is what Herbert Marcuse calls for in his Repressive Tolerance. The point there is not to defend society against anything inherently problematic, but merely to push the very notion and social norm of a "managed", fad-driven discourse to its breaking point. It's a "chaos monkey" approach to the whole problem of communication 'filter bubbles' and 'echo chambers', or pretty much the trollish 4chan model under a different name.
pyronik19 5y ago
Most of the people getting caught up in all this banning aren't rabid racist or misogynist or whatever ism or ist they are being smeared with. They are non hateful individuals who don't fall in line with the "current thing" and have a non-approved view point. The woke crowd somehow has been given a monopoly on who has a voice in the modern era. Is someone a "transphobe" and intolerant of trans people because they think the definition of a woman is the same as sex? This isn't intolerance this is a disagreement on the nature of reality.
jdasdf 5y ago
There are well known excuses.

by k__ 5y ago

JasonFruit 5y ago

Would you want a corporation or government to decide for you which of your neighbors you shouldn't tolerate, without letting you get to know them, or would you like to make an informed decision yourself?

esotericimpl 5y ago
jaegerpicker 5y ago
No Corporation has decided anything like that. Corporations are responding to their customers requesting those users to not be tolerated. This isn't Twitter banning anyone because they want to. It's Twitter deciding that enough users have decided that tolerance has run its course. They were in response to campaigns of users to deplatform those who we consider harmful.
- bluescrn 5y ago
  Corporations seem to be responding to tiny but very vocal mobs of activists. These groups don't necessarily represent the majority point of view.
  - jaegerpicker 5y ago
    Are you sure? I know a huge number of users that advocate for Users that expose bigoted views or misinformation to be de-platformed. See the recent Joe Rogan podcast push. That wasn't a tiny percentage of users.

seneca 5y ago

Arguments aren't axioms. Karl Popper is not some inherent authority.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

And this in turn makes you intolerant, and I won't tolerate this. Free speech is important and should be protected, even if k__ disagrees with what you said.

zozbot234 5y ago
This is actually a good point, and it's important to realize that even Karl Popper acknowledged this. He explicitly argues that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. The Paradox of Tolerance is more about acknowledging that limits to tolerance must exist somewhere than an actual argument for narrowing those limits.

grapeskin 5y ago

I accept the right of others to say things I find absolutely abhorrent because I recognize that I sometimes say things I believe to be perfectly rational and someone else finds intolerable. Fighting disagreeable speech with more free speech is harder than just banning it, but generations that follow will be better off for it. Just seeing the Russia v Ukraine conflict and seeing how one country can enforce a narrative by law and arrest people as being sympathizers of an “intolerant” regime should be enough to make people aware that regulating verbal “intolerance” is a bad idea.

periphrasis 5y ago
The irony of course being that the American political demographic, MAGA, with the biggest grievances regarding tech “censorship” also appear to be most willing to make excuses for or deny Russian war crimes.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  I can go on Twitter and see a lot of examples of this and generate that impression, but then I don’t see it in real life. What’s real? How do we know our perception of reality isn’t being distorted by algorithms and sampling bias?
  - periphrasis 5y ago
    The question would be a lot easier to resolve if the major MAGA thought leaders would stop making excuses for genocide. Anecdotally, my dad is MAGA-leaning right, and while he opposes the invasion and is happy to see the Russian army destroyed, his immediate response when I brought up the mass graves was “how much of that is propaganda though?”. Skepticism about what we are told about a war is always warranted, but right wing Americans are being actively persuaded right now to deny or doubt Russian war crimes despite overwhelming evidence.
    - briandear 5y ago
      What overwhelming evidence? At this point it’s allegations. The crimes haven’t actually been investigated. They should be. But “overwhelming evidence” should be rephrased as “lots of allegations.”

zozbot234 5y ago

There are also arguments for avoiding the breakdown of communication by expressly favoring the most strongly censored and unfashionable ideas at any given time and striving to platform them everywhere, even irrespective of their actual merits. This is what Herbert Marcuse calls for in his Repressive Tolerance. The point there is not to defend society against anything inherently problematic, but merely to push the very notion and social norm of a "managed", fad-driven discourse to its breaking point. It's a "chaos monkey" approach to the whole problem of communication 'filter bubbles' and 'echo chambers', or pretty much the trollish 4chan model under a different name.

pyronik19 5y ago

Most of the people getting caught up in all this banning aren't rabid racist or misogynist or whatever ism or ist they are being smeared with. They are non hateful individuals who don't fall in line with the "current thing" and have a non-approved view point. The woke crowd somehow has been given a monopoly on who has a voice in the modern era. Is someone a "transphobe" and intolerant of trans people because they think the definition of a woman is the same as sex? This isn't intolerance this is a disagreement on the nature of reality.

jdasdf 5y ago

There are well known excuses.