7 ms·

Where is the diversity we advocate? Must the whole world accept one value? We accept homosexuality so we won't accept other people like Muslims not accepting it

by eyear 4y ago

Where is the diversity we advocate? Must the whole world accept one value? We accept homosexuality so we won't accept other people like Muslims not accepting it? So WE are definitely right and people who are different from us are absolutely wrong?

lettergram 4y ago
- ipython 4y ago
  Isn’t “canceling” exactly what the ccp did here though?
- slater 4y ago
  haha, good one!
ipython 4y ago
So it’s ok to censor a homosexual joke? Because we need to accept Muslims? Personally I'm ok with jokes about Muslims and homosexuals and Christians and atheists and pimple faced basement dwellers and yuppies driving bmws and…
jadbox 4y ago
The diversity march advocates for the freedom to express oppressed minorities. I think it's philosophically a vulgar view of liberal diversity is that diversity is also defined as the ability to also tolerate groups that systematically suppresses its people of diversity (a view that Alexander Dugin espouses).
kiratp 4y ago
The good ol’ Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Spivak 4y ago
The paradox of tolerance isn’t really a paradox, it’s a proof by contradiction that the naive notion of tolerance is not sound. Homosexuality is a natural observable phenomenon in the human species across time and cultures. It is an aspect of people as fundamental as height or skin tone. Not accepting them for any reason is intolerance and does not have to be tolerated. It is also intolerance to not accept Muslims, but you do not have to tolerate any intolerance that manifests from their beliefs. People are not tolerant or intolerant, specific views held by and actions done by people are. You don’t need values to reason about tolerance.
- jlawson 4y ago
  You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop others from expressing different beliefs - nothing else. He did NOT mean "intolerance" of any particular skin tone, or sexual behavior, identity group, etc. This is important because intolerance of sexual behavior doesn't structurally break the system of discussion and truth-finding that we use. You could jail every blue-eyed person, just was we jail people who commit certain crimes, but as long as everyone can speak then our system for collective truth-seeking still works. The ONLY meaning for the word "intolerance" that breaks that is intolerance of free speech, and that's the only kind of intolerance that Popper said needs to be suppressed with force. And he was right. I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.
  - wawjgreen 4y ago
    why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda. Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???
educaysean 4y ago
I guess there is no right and no wrong in that worldview. How very convenient. A dictatorship that disregards the will of the people it governs has only committed wrong in the eyes of these sensitive modern westerners, right? CCP tells the world its subjugates are happy and fulfilled so who are we to judge?
npteljes 4y ago
>we won't accept other[s] not accepting it I think that's right. Paraphrasing Popper: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance". It's not about being right or wrong, it's about how people should treat each other, even if they dislike how the other one acts.
- int_19h 4y ago
  In order to maintain a tolerant society, you must not tolerate intolerant actions. It does not require suppression of intolerant opinions.
  - npteljes 4y ago
    I don't know how I would go about the specifics of implementing it, to be honest. Let's suppose we suppress the actions, not the opinions. Is allowing someone to express their opinion an action? Is operating a platform (like Twitter), and letting intolerant opinions proliferate there, an action?

by eyear 4y ago

lettergram 4y ago

ipython 4y ago
Isn’t “canceling” exactly what the ccp did here though?
slater 4y ago
haha, good one!

ipython 4y ago

So it’s ok to censor a homosexual joke? Because we need to accept Muslims? Personally I'm ok with jokes about Muslims and homosexuals and Christians and atheists and pimple faced basement dwellers and yuppies driving bmws and…

jadbox 4y ago

The diversity march advocates for the freedom to express oppressed minorities. I think it's philosophically a vulgar view of liberal diversity is that diversity is also defined as the ability to also tolerate groups that systematically suppresses its people of diversity (a view that Alexander Dugin espouses).

kiratp 4y ago

The good ol’ Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Spivak 4y ago

The paradox of tolerance isn’t really a paradox, it’s a proof by contradiction that the naive notion of tolerance is not sound. Homosexuality is a natural observable phenomenon in the human species across time and cultures. It is an aspect of people as fundamental as height or skin tone. Not accepting them for any reason is intolerance and does not have to be tolerated. It is also intolerance to not accept Muslims, but you do not have to tolerate any intolerance that manifests from their beliefs. People are not tolerant or intolerant, specific views held by and actions done by people are. You don’t need values to reason about tolerance.

jlawson 4y ago
You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop others from expressing different beliefs - nothing else. He did NOT mean "intolerance" of any particular skin tone, or sexual behavior, identity group, etc. This is important because intolerance of sexual behavior doesn't structurally break the system of discussion and truth-finding that we use. You could jail every blue-eyed person, just was we jail people who commit certain crimes, but as long as everyone can speak then our system for collective truth-seeking still works. The ONLY meaning for the word "intolerance" that breaks that is intolerance of free speech, and that's the only kind of intolerance that Popper said needs to be suppressed with force. And he was right. I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.
- wawjgreen 4y ago
  why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda. Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???

educaysean 4y ago

I guess there is no right and no wrong in that worldview. How very convenient. A dictatorship that disregards the will of the people it governs has only committed wrong in the eyes of these sensitive modern westerners, right? CCP tells the world its subjugates are happy and fulfilled so who are we to judge?

npteljes 4y ago

>we won't accept other[s] not accepting it I think that's right. Paraphrasing Popper: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance". It's not about being right or wrong, it's about how people should treat each other, even if they dislike how the other one acts.

int_19h 4y ago
In order to maintain a tolerant society, you must not tolerate intolerant actions. It does not require suppression of intolerant opinions.
- npteljes 4y ago
  I don't know how I would go about the specifics of implementing it, to be honest. Let's suppose we suppress the actions, not the opinions. Is allowing someone to express their opinion an action? Is operating a platform (like Twitter), and letting intolerant opinions proliferate there, an action?