4 ms·

it's the paradox of tolerance. a jewish person might be unwilling to work in a place that tolerates an open nazi, and a racist might be unwilling to work with a

it's the paradox of tolerance. a jewish person might be unwilling to work in a place that tolerates an open nazi, and a racist might be unwilling to work with a black person. The point is that you have to make a decision at the end of the day, because not making a decision is also making a decision. And usually it's not the people who hate black people who will choose to leave. So while this is an example where you would obviously not want to respect the wish of the person uncomfortable working with someone else, it's not the way this situation usually goes. usually it's the rape victim or marginalized person who will end up leaving.

gtirloni 4y ago
According to the law in most places, there are no such places that tolerate an "open nazi" because being a nazi is a crime. There are law against antisemitic speech. There are also laws against racism. You don't have to make a decision at all, the decision has been made for you. Well, I guess you have to make a decision to follow the law or not but that's an extreme. If someone in a conference is open about being a nazi or a racist, you call the police, maybe collect some evidence first, etc. Whatever is needed in your country to report an offense. And yes, I agree... usually the victim will leave the place, not having enough energy to be an activist on top of dealing with their troubles and/or fearing the consequences. That's unfortunate. But that's where it gets complicated, for the victim. Not for the conference organizers.
- asddubs 4y ago
  i guess, i feel that's missing the point of the example, though. Like I could have said open racist (which is not against the law as you imply) instead, i just picked a random example. But you are making the decision that this is something for the victim to deal with, not the organizers. That's not at all a given by default. As you yourself point out, the same standard is not applied to nazis, so why pedophile rapists? If you are in a position of power it is your job to make these decisions one way or the other, it's not a foregone conclusion.
  - gtirloni 4y ago
    I'm saying they should follow the law and refrain from doing more than that. I feel the law is currently sufficient to deal with this situation and we don't need a cancel campaign online.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      It’s currently 100% legal (at least in America due to the first amendment) to be a nazi, anti semite, or racist and to express your opinions as such. So following the law doesn’t do anything for this community.
- cygx 4y ago
  As far as I'm aware, organizations like the American Nazi Party or the National Socialist Movement (United States) are legal in the US. Even Germany failed to ban its neo-Nazi party (the National Democratic Party of Germany) despite the court acknowledging that its goals are anti-constitutional and similar in nature to historical National Socialism. As long as you color within the lines, it is possible to be an open Nazi in most places.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You're still allowed to exclude them on the basis of being Nazis in most places in the US. Political affiliation/ideology is generally not a protected class.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - cygx 4y ago
      The claim was that, quote: According to the law in most places, there are no such places that tolerate an "open nazi" because being a nazi is a crime.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I was merely adding that even in a country where being an open Nazi is legal, it is still legal to exclude Nazis from your place of business, not arguing against you.
Kamq 4y ago
That's not really the paradox of tolerance. At least not the version attributed to Popper. The relevant quote from The Open Society and Its Enemies is: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. It's about the right to suppress those who leave the arena of debate and move to extra-judicial force, such as the extra-legal violence used to keep black people subdued during segregation (the work was published in 1945, segregation is very relevant). What you described is people not wanting to work with people that hate them.

gtirloni 4y ago

According to the law in most places, there are no such places that tolerate an "open nazi" because being a nazi is a crime. There are law against antisemitic speech. There are also laws against racism. You don't have to make a decision at all, the decision has been made for you. Well, I guess you have to make a decision to follow the law or not but that's an extreme. If someone in a conference is open about being a nazi or a racist, you call the police, maybe collect some evidence first, etc. Whatever is needed in your country to report an offense. And yes, I agree... usually the victim will leave the place, not having enough energy to be an activist on top of dealing with their troubles and/or fearing the consequences. That's unfortunate. But that's where it gets complicated, for the victim. Not for the conference organizers.

asddubs 4y ago
i guess, i feel that's missing the point of the example, though. Like I could have said open racist (which is not against the law as you imply) instead, i just picked a random example. But you are making the decision that this is something for the victim to deal with, not the organizers. That's not at all a given by default. As you yourself point out, the same standard is not applied to nazis, so why pedophile rapists? If you are in a position of power it is your job to make these decisions one way or the other, it's not a foregone conclusion.
- gtirloni 4y ago
  I'm saying they should follow the law and refrain from doing more than that. I feel the law is currently sufficient to deal with this situation and we don't need a cancel campaign online.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    It’s currently 100% legal (at least in America due to the first amendment) to be a nazi, anti semite, or racist and to express your opinions as such. So following the law doesn’t do anything for this community.
cygx 4y ago
As far as I'm aware, organizations like the American Nazi Party or the National Socialist Movement (United States) are legal in the US. Even Germany failed to ban its neo-Nazi party (the National Democratic Party of Germany) despite the court acknowledging that its goals are anti-constitutional and similar in nature to historical National Socialism. As long as you color within the lines, it is possible to be an open Nazi in most places.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You're still allowed to exclude them on the basis of being Nazis in most places in the US. Political affiliation/ideology is generally not a protected class.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - cygx 4y ago
    The claim was that, quote: According to the law in most places, there are no such places that tolerate an "open nazi" because being a nazi is a crime.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I was merely adding that even in a country where being an open Nazi is legal, it is still legal to exclude Nazis from your place of business, not arguing against you.

Kamq 4y ago

That's not really the paradox of tolerance. At least not the version attributed to Popper. The relevant quote from The Open Society and Its Enemies is: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. It's about the right to suppress those who leave the arena of debate and move to extra-judicial force, such as the extra-legal violence used to keep black people subdued during segregation (the work was published in 1945, segregation is very relevant). What you described is people not wanting to work with people that hate them.