5 ms·

> "Intolerating intolerance, violently if we must is the only way for tolerance to exist." No, That literally is the antithesis of tolerance. Also, IF (and th

> "Intolerating intolerance, violently if we must is the only way for tolerance to exist." No, That literally is the antithesis of tolerance. Also, IF (and that's a big if) some things are to be proscribed, they must be proscribed BY THE LAW and with DUE PROCESS, not "violently" as you claim.

Comevius 4y ago
Who said anything about not having a due process. Of course we need a constitution, and need laws, but they are all worthless if you don't have a police and a military people can rely on. This is so obvious.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded like you were saying that the general public should be violent towards people who are "intolerant" as a way to promote tolerance. But now I see that that could not possibly have been what you meant because this isn't Twitter and people on this forum aren't that dumb.
davidivadavid 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  "intolerant of the intolerant" I don't like that phrase. Because it's extremely vague and implies that things other than physical violence could be a focus of suppression. Intolerant opinions and speech are not and should not be policed in any meaningful way. The free and open exchange of ideas is crucial to a free society. Even those that are "intolerant" or offensive. And, after seeing what happened over the last couple of years, I wonder how far people these days would take "intolerance of the intolerant"? Can a person who is known to be "intolerant" be banned from a grocery store for no other reason than their opinions? Can they be banned from all grocery stores? Should they be? Should they be fired from their jobs? Should they be harassed whenever they leave their house? There are way too many ways to abuse the notion that you should be "intolerant of the intolerant".
  - Comevius 4y ago
    Free speech absolutism is not practical. Platforms like HN, Twitter, Facebook or Reddit would be quite hostile, it's like letting people out in the streets doing whatever they want. That's not practical. The irony is that mainstream platforms tend to censor responsibly (even if false positives tend to occur due to the use of bots), while free speech absolutist platforms like Parler would ban you for merely having a different opinion. The other irony is that free speech absolutists are responsible for nearly all the terror attacks in the United States. The harmful ideas of these absolutists are rejected by society for a reason, but this was the case even before the internet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
    - curtainsforus 4y ago
      If the whole world engages in witch-burning, and burn a lot of innocents along with the old women who poison wells, and you build a town and loudly declare it will have no witch-hunts, then you'll get people who want to live in that town- including a lot of witches. HN, etc. really shouldn't be "platforms" moderated by a central entity, anyway. If I like Dang's moderation, I should be able to pick and choose it. Maybe there's another potential moderator out there whose sensibilities line up more neatly with my own; I should be able to choose their moderation, too. Decentralized/splintered moderation, that's what we need. (I've never been on Parler. Do they actually ban people for disagreeing with them?) (Is it possible that rejecting people from society makes them more likely to be violent?)
npteljes 4y ago
It maybe is on a theoretical level, but theoretical purity doesn't exist in the world - I think. At least we tried a bunch of times and it never worked so far. So, you end up with complex situations like this: not tolerating the intolerant, to sustain tolerance on the long term. Being very selectively violent, in order to keep peace. Restrict some freedoms, to enable wider freedoms. And so on.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  I don't understand what you mean by "being selectively violent". Who decides when it's time to be "selectively violent" and who gets to apply this "selective violence"? Because I'm sure this same principle of "selective violence" could be easily used (and would gladly be used) as justification by the folks who think they're "fighting fascism" and the like.
  - npteljes 4y ago
    I was trying to refer to the concept of "monopoly on violence"[0], which is basically giving up the right to be violent, and enable violence to special groups and special occasions (think police, military) in order to have a peaceful society. You're very right that this is a hotbed of abuse, as I think every other power structure is. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Comevius 4y ago

Who said anything about not having a due process. Of course we need a constitution, and need laws, but they are all worthless if you don't have a police and a military people can rely on. This is so obvious.

illuminerdy 4y ago
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded like you were saying that the general public should be violent towards people who are "intolerant" as a way to promote tolerance. But now I see that that could not possibly have been what you meant because this isn't Twitter and people on this forum aren't that dumb.

davidivadavid 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

illuminerdy 4y ago
"intolerant of the intolerant" I don't like that phrase. Because it's extremely vague and implies that things other than physical violence could be a focus of suppression. Intolerant opinions and speech are not and should not be policed in any meaningful way. The free and open exchange of ideas is crucial to a free society. Even those that are "intolerant" or offensive. And, after seeing what happened over the last couple of years, I wonder how far people these days would take "intolerance of the intolerant"? Can a person who is known to be "intolerant" be banned from a grocery store for no other reason than their opinions? Can they be banned from all grocery stores? Should they be? Should they be fired from their jobs? Should they be harassed whenever they leave their house? There are way too many ways to abuse the notion that you should be "intolerant of the intolerant".
- Comevius 4y ago
  Free speech absolutism is not practical. Platforms like HN, Twitter, Facebook or Reddit would be quite hostile, it's like letting people out in the streets doing whatever they want. That's not practical. The irony is that mainstream platforms tend to censor responsibly (even if false positives tend to occur due to the use of bots), while free speech absolutist platforms like Parler would ban you for merely having a different opinion. The other irony is that free speech absolutists are responsible for nearly all the terror attacks in the United States. The harmful ideas of these absolutists are rejected by society for a reason, but this was the case even before the internet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
  - curtainsforus 4y ago
    If the whole world engages in witch-burning, and burn a lot of innocents along with the old women who poison wells, and you build a town and loudly declare it will have no witch-hunts, then you'll get people who want to live in that town- including a lot of witches. HN, etc. really shouldn't be "platforms" moderated by a central entity, anyway. If I like Dang's moderation, I should be able to pick and choose it. Maybe there's another potential moderator out there whose sensibilities line up more neatly with my own; I should be able to choose their moderation, too. Decentralized/splintered moderation, that's what we need. (I've never been on Parler. Do they actually ban people for disagreeing with them?) (Is it possible that rejecting people from society makes them more likely to be violent?)

npteljes 4y ago

It maybe is on a theoretical level, but theoretical purity doesn't exist in the world - I think. At least we tried a bunch of times and it never worked so far. So, you end up with complex situations like this: not tolerating the intolerant, to sustain tolerance on the long term. Being very selectively violent, in order to keep peace. Restrict some freedoms, to enable wider freedoms. And so on.

illuminerdy 4y ago
I don't understand what you mean by "being selectively violent". Who decides when it's time to be "selectively violent" and who gets to apply this "selective violence"? Because I'm sure this same principle of "selective violence" could be easily used (and would gladly be used) as justification by the folks who think they're "fighting fascism" and the like.
- npteljes 4y ago
  I was trying to refer to the concept of "monopoly on violence"[0], which is basically giving up the right to be violent, and enable violence to special groups and special occasions (think police, military) in order to have a peaceful society. You're very right that this is a hotbed of abuse, as I think every other power structure is. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence