3 ms·

Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical? I believe it is, but would be interested in hearing opposing thoug

Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical? I believe it is, but would be interested in hearing opposing thoughts.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Because Hackernews is read by humans, humans are still emotional herd animals, and the guidelines to downvoting are guidelines, not rules which can get you banned for downvoting what you disagree with. Voting has very little to do with anything in these discussions, and it has been that way for years now.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Whether or not it is against the rules or can get you banned isn’t really relevant to whether it’s hypocritical in the context of this discussion. Immature undergrads shouting down speech they disagree with on campus has been going on for years too, no?
Levitz 4y ago
The paradox of tolerance explains how in an open society, when one ideology dismisses rational thought and discussion and opts to, instead, silence opposition, society must be intolerant of that ideology in order to be tolerant itself, because if it allows intolerance then it will become less tolerant itself. That is the paradox. In order to be as tolerant as possible you must not be as tolerant as possible. This formulation is very often misquoted, interpreted to mean that a tolerant society must repress bigoted beliefs. That leads to no paradox at all, the term "tolerance" is used with different meanings in order to misconstrue a formulation. In doing so, people misquoting are being what the first, correct formulation warns us about. It is a quite ironic phenomenon, people use an argument of authority that actually states the complete opposite of what they want. I don't think it is hypocritical to support the correct formulation and, thus, silence people positing the incorrect one. Not that I downvoted him, not that I can, not that I would, I believe these matters to be better left out in the open, but I don't think it's hypocritical.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  When I hear people saying that to advance the overall virtue of tolerance, one must not tolerate intolerance, they aren’t misusing some formal philosophical paradox. They’re just using their own sense. Most probably aren’t even aware of what you’re referencing. It seems to me that those people just prioritize a different virtue than what that “correct” formulation would have you prioritize.
ThrowawayR2 4y ago
> "Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical?" If the poster is saying that "no one should tolerate any person who is intolerant", by definition, that includes themselves. The poster has waived their own right to tolerance from the POV of literally any group who views said poster as "intolerant" according to the very principle they are advocating. It is a practical demonstration of the glaring flaw with that tiresome Popper misqoute; it can be wielded from any POV, no matter how ridiculous. So there is no hypocrisy; they have asked for something and it was given to them. Hopefully the lesson sinks in and we hear no more misapplications of the paradox of tolerance.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  > If the poster is saying that "no one should tolerate any person who is intolerant", by definition, that includes themselves. The poster has waived their own right to tolerance from the POV of literally any group who views said poster as "intolerant" according to the very principle they are advocating. Here’s an analogy. Group A says “violence is never ok”. Person B says “No, it’s ok to beat the shit out of someone if they say something you disagree with”. Group A proceeds to beat the shit out of Person B Two things are true. Person B has nothing to complain about. Nothing happened to them that they didn’t say is acceptable. Also, Group A doesn’t believe the thing they said they believe.
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    > "Group A says “violence is never ok”." Setting aside that using violence as the example of harm done is prejudicial, this flaw in this analogy is the "never ok", which is a hidden assumption of the mythical "free speech absolutism" that nearly no one subscribes to. As I have remarked elsewhere in this thread, believing that interfering with speech in some situations is wrong does not logically imply a belief that interfering with speech in all situations is wrong. So there is, at least in my opinion, still no hypocrisy.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      The fact that the real world belief and the analogized belief are both absolutes is not an important detail of the point that the analogy gets at.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical? I believe it is, but would be interested in hearing opposing thoughts.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Because Hackernews is read by humans, humans are still emotional herd animals, and the guidelines to downvoting are guidelines, not rules which can get you banned for downvoting what you disagree with. Voting has very little to do with anything in these discussions, and it has been that way for years now.

bandyaboot 4y ago
Whether or not it is against the rules or can get you banned isn’t really relevant to whether it’s hypocritical in the context of this discussion. Immature undergrads shouting down speech they disagree with on campus has been going on for years too, no?

Levitz 4y ago

The paradox of tolerance explains how in an open society, when one ideology dismisses rational thought and discussion and opts to, instead, silence opposition, society must be intolerant of that ideology in order to be tolerant itself, because if it allows intolerance then it will become less tolerant itself. That is the paradox. In order to be as tolerant as possible you must not be as tolerant as possible. This formulation is very often misquoted, interpreted to mean that a tolerant society must repress bigoted beliefs. That leads to no paradox at all, the term "tolerance" is used with different meanings in order to misconstrue a formulation. In doing so, people misquoting are being what the first, correct formulation warns us about. It is a quite ironic phenomenon, people use an argument of authority that actually states the complete opposite of what they want. I don't think it is hypocritical to support the correct formulation and, thus, silence people positing the incorrect one. Not that I downvoted him, not that I can, not that I would, I believe these matters to be better left out in the open, but I don't think it's hypocritical.

bandyaboot 4y ago
When I hear people saying that to advance the overall virtue of tolerance, one must not tolerate intolerance, they aren’t misusing some formal philosophical paradox. They’re just using their own sense. Most probably aren’t even aware of what you’re referencing. It seems to me that those people just prioritize a different virtue than what that “correct” formulation would have you prioritize.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago

> "Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical?" If the poster is saying that "no one should tolerate any person who is intolerant", by definition, that includes themselves. The poster has waived their own right to tolerance from the POV of literally any group who views said poster as "intolerant" according to the very principle they are advocating. It is a practical demonstration of the glaring flaw with that tiresome Popper misqoute; it can be wielded from any POV, no matter how ridiculous. So there is no hypocrisy; they have asked for something and it was given to them. Hopefully the lesson sinks in and we hear no more misapplications of the paradox of tolerance.

bandyaboot 4y ago
> If the poster is saying that "no one should tolerate any person who is intolerant", by definition, that includes themselves. The poster has waived their own right to tolerance from the POV of literally any group who views said poster as "intolerant" according to the very principle they are advocating. Here’s an analogy. Group A says “violence is never ok”. Person B says “No, it’s ok to beat the shit out of someone if they say something you disagree with”. Group A proceeds to beat the shit out of Person B Two things are true. Person B has nothing to complain about. Nothing happened to them that they didn’t say is acceptable. Also, Group A doesn’t believe the thing they said they believe.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  > "Group A says “violence is never ok”." Setting aside that using violence as the example of harm done is prejudicial, this flaw in this analogy is the "never ok", which is a hidden assumption of the mythical "free speech absolutism" that nearly no one subscribes to. As I have remarked elsewhere in this thread, believing that interfering with speech in some situations is wrong does not logically imply a belief that interfering with speech in all situations is wrong. So there is, at least in my opinion, still no hypocrisy.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    The fact that the real world belief and the analogized belief are both absolutes is not an important detail of the point that the analogy gets at.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]