5 ms·

Two things come to mind when reading this. First: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression wo

by cauch 4y ago

Two things come to mind when reading this. First: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise" That's the trick, right? Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well. There are still people in US convinced that "the election was stolen" whatever argument is used, and they will never change their mind (they don't have any reason to change their mind: any argument can be claimed being "part of the conspiracy" so they don't have to accept a result that they don't like). Second: I don't see why it should be "all or nothing". Intolerance has different degrees of application. It goes from using violence to just refusing to give a platform to intolerant people (which is very mild: they can go everywhere else). It's part of "keeping them in check by public opinion". If someone has an intolerance level of degree 10, we can reply with an anti-intolerance measure of degree 10. If they have an intolerance level of degree 2, why should we not reply to anti-intolerance measure of degree 2?

harimau777 4y ago
Your first point is what I never see addressed in these discussions. I agree that "intolerance of intolerance" is dangerous since it could easily be abused or misused, but what's the alternative? What we are doing now isn't working.
- woooooo 4y ago
  It's working fine? Who is President right now? The people who stormed the capitol are not being tolerated and approximately noone is arguing that they should be.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Though many argue that most are being disproportionately punished for a minor trespass offence.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    I'm not sure it is. There are still numerous anti-trans laws being passed. The supreme court struck down the right to an abortion and looks set to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people. Police brutality and unequal legal outcomes are still common. Gerrymandering, the electoral college, and campaign finance reform means that the weak still have almost no voice in government.
    - cvbv 4y ago
      Saving children from being sterilized is actually a very good thing. It's one of the few things that conservative legislatures are getting right. They have, perhaps unintentionally, adopted some of the radical feminist position on this - to the benefit of women and children. The rest of their legislative agenda, agreed, it's not so great.
      - zimpenfish 4y ago
        > Saving children from being sterilized is actually a very good thing. Which children are being sterilised? Do you mean the ones going on puberty blockers? Because those are reversible, aren't they?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    Is "noone" a euphemism for Donald Trump (and his many followers and sycophants and white supremacist dinner guests)? That's the only way I can make sense out of your argument. Donald Trump says he plans to pardon US Capitol attack participants if elected: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/01/donald-trump-pardons-january-6-us-capitol-attack https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/01/donald-trump...
endominus 4y ago
Per the second point, I have a thought experiment I like to present people. Let's say you were a judge at a murder trial. The evidence has been presented, and it's up to you to make a final decision, but you remain unsure. After taking stock of every scrap of evidence presented, you think there's a 60% chance that the defendent committed the crime. The punishment for murder is 10 years of jail time. After some thought, you decide to give him 6 years, to match the level of evidence. Is that just? What you are proposing is normalizing intolerance. Systemitizing it, so that it has the appearance of fairness and justice while altering the culture and expectations around it. And as Popper (and Plato before him) argued, such a distinction requires a despot to determine who is unacceptably "intolerant" and who is merely intolerant of the intolerant. That philosophical position is incompatible with liberal democracy - that's what makes the "paradox of tolerance" a paradox!
- harimau777 4y ago
  I don't think that's a comparable scenario. In the scenario that you present the question is whether someone actually did what they are accused of. In the parent's scenario the question is how they should be punished for what they did. A better comparison would be a defendant who was found guilty but there were mitigating circumstances and a low probability of reoffending. In that case I would definitely support a reduced sentence. Similarly, the parent would presumably advocate overlooking intolerance when there are mitigating circumstances or if the intolerance is unlikely to have a serious effect. It's the difference between your uncle telling an off color joke at Thanksgiving and the chief of police villainizing black people in a press conference.
- cauch 4y ago
  Your thought experiment does not correspond to what I am talking about. Your thought experiment correspond to the following situation: "someone is intolerant and are doing intolerant actions, but you don't these actions. Maybe these actions are intolerant to level 10, maybe they are intolerant to level 2". In what I'm talking about, you assess the situation and come to the conclusion "Mr A has done an intolerant action of level 2, so, we react by using anti-intolerance of level 2. Mrs B has done an intolerant action of level 10, so, we react by using anti-intolerance of level 10." The "all or nothing" is not working well, I have a thought experiment. Let's say you were a judge at a trial. The evidence has been presented, and it's up to you to make a final decision. The trial contains a lot of proofs and shows that the defendant stolen something. But you can only condemn the defendant for murder. If it's not murder, you need to let him free, and, if he want, he can steal again. If he steal, he may be arrested again, judged again, and released again without sentence, because it's not murder. > And as Popper (and Plato before him) argued, such a distinction requires a despot to determine who is unacceptably "intolerant" and who is merely intolerant of the intolerant That's social study 101, and if you don't realise that this challenge appears in EVERYTHING related to social, then I doubt you can provide anything constructive. Who decide that murder is bad? Who decide that underage alcohol drinking is bad? Who decide that putting employees in situation where they have to choose between bad salaries and not having anything at all is bad? ... There will always be a "despot" who judge what is good or bad. The trick is that this despot should be an active and continuous discussion between citizens not based on emotions, but based on what is fair.
ryan93 4y ago
support for gay marriage has increased massively over my lifetime.
concordDance 4y ago
> Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well It's working quite well really. There are few things that people stick to their guns on in the face of a good argument. For the average person maybe only a dozen or so. > There are still people in US convinced that "the election was stolen" whatever argument is used, and they will never change their mind (they don't have any reason to change their mind: any argument can be claimed being "part of the conspiracy" so they don't have to accept a result that they don't like). This is a bad example, actually providing a compelling argument on a case like this which is built on divergent world view would be the length of a book (to rebuild the erroneous parts of the world view), not an essay. The correct solution is to give people general epistemological tools and habits that are applicable in most situations that allows and encourages them to do properly rigorous research to understand a complex issue. That teaches them what kind of questions they need to ask, what sort of context might be relevant, how to judge reliability of information and ensuring they make their hypothesis disprovable.
- cauch 4y ago
  People have zero incentive to do difficult effort to learn to accept things that they don't want to even accept in the first place. It's like saying "we should teach people to understand why committing crime is bad, so no one will commit crime anymore"
Stupulous 4y ago
>Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well. Have you had a very different experience of reality than me? Apart from some very niche places, the response to crazy ideas has been insult, ignore, and call for censorship. In the rare case that any good faith response is made, it's an appeal to an authority that the crazies don't respect because it repeatedly and unapologetically lied about someone they do. From my perspective it is abundantly evident that the decades-long push of these people out of the public and into their own spaces is the cause of our current strife. In the aforementioned niche places, election doubts were all but extinct within a month because people actually addressed them at the object level. But I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely curious about where/when you've seen rational argument fall short.
naasking 4y ago
> Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well. Really? Seems to be working great actually, we've had centuries of great social progress and increased liberties, an explosion of scientific knowledge, and religious adherence has never been lower. Rational argument seems to be winning in the long arc of history. Maybe you think there have been some disturbing recent hiccups, but if people seem to have "crazy ideas", you can also consider whether you truly understand where they are coming from.
- cauch 4y ago
  Well, the centuries of progress you are referring to are sometimes happening in countries that, at the time, were applying a anti-intolerance stance. Laws again libel, for example, exist for centuries in countries where progress grew sometimes faster than in other places. On top of that, for your argument to work, saying that progress happened is not enough. You also need to prove that progress happened _better_ than otherwise. For all I know, we had great social progress, but we would have had super great social progress if more anti-intolerance happened.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Laws again libel, for example, exist for centuries in countries where progress grew sometimes faster than in other places. Ok, I'm not sure what you think this proves. Libel is specifically a charge that's proven using rational argument in a court of governed by rational procedures of evidence. Furthermore, libel is a charge of making false statements that injure someone's reputation. True and false are again established using rational argument, so it seems like you're saying that places that prized rational procedures that enforced the distinction between true and false progressed better than others? That doesn't seem to agree with your thesis. > On top of that, for your argument to work, saying that progress happened is not enough. You also need to prove that progress happened _better_ than otherwise Well the entire history prior to the rise of rational argument consisted of religious wars. Were those environments more tolerant? I don't really understand exactly what alternative to rational argument you're proposing, because it sounds like just another religious war that you're justifying because you are obviously morally superior to everyone else, and this will not at all be like every previous religious crusade in the name "goodness".

by cauch 4y ago

harimau777 4y ago

Your first point is what I never see addressed in these discussions. I agree that "intolerance of intolerance" is dangerous since it could easily be abused or misused, but what's the alternative? What we are doing now isn't working.

woooooo 4y ago
It's working fine? Who is President right now? The people who stormed the capitol are not being tolerated and approximately noone is arguing that they should be.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Though many argue that most are being disproportionately punished for a minor trespass offence.
- harimau777 4y ago
  I'm not sure it is. There are still numerous anti-trans laws being passed. The supreme court struck down the right to an abortion and looks set to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people. Police brutality and unequal legal outcomes are still common. Gerrymandering, the electoral college, and campaign finance reform means that the weak still have almost no voice in government.
  - cvbv 4y ago
    Saving children from being sterilized is actually a very good thing. It's one of the few things that conservative legislatures are getting right. They have, perhaps unintentionally, adopted some of the radical feminist position on this - to the benefit of women and children. The rest of their legislative agenda, agreed, it's not so great.
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > Saving children from being sterilized is actually a very good thing. Which children are being sterilised? Do you mean the ones going on puberty blockers? Because those are reversible, aren't they?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  Is "noone" a euphemism for Donald Trump (and his many followers and sycophants and white supremacist dinner guests)? That's the only way I can make sense out of your argument. Donald Trump says he plans to pardon US Capitol attack participants if elected: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/01/donald-trump-pardons-january-6-us-capitol-attack https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/01/donald-trump...

endominus 4y ago

Per the second point, I have a thought experiment I like to present people. Let's say you were a judge at a murder trial. The evidence has been presented, and it's up to you to make a final decision, but you remain unsure. After taking stock of every scrap of evidence presented, you think there's a 60% chance that the defendent committed the crime. The punishment for murder is 10 years of jail time. After some thought, you decide to give him 6 years, to match the level of evidence. Is that just? What you are proposing is normalizing intolerance. Systemitizing it, so that it has the appearance of fairness and justice while altering the culture and expectations around it. And as Popper (and Plato before him) argued, such a distinction requires a despot to determine who is unacceptably "intolerant" and who is merely intolerant of the intolerant. That philosophical position is incompatible with liberal democracy - that's what makes the "paradox of tolerance" a paradox!

harimau777 4y ago
I don't think that's a comparable scenario. In the scenario that you present the question is whether someone actually did what they are accused of. In the parent's scenario the question is how they should be punished for what they did. A better comparison would be a defendant who was found guilty but there were mitigating circumstances and a low probability of reoffending. In that case I would definitely support a reduced sentence. Similarly, the parent would presumably advocate overlooking intolerance when there are mitigating circumstances or if the intolerance is unlikely to have a serious effect. It's the difference between your uncle telling an off color joke at Thanksgiving and the chief of police villainizing black people in a press conference.
cauch 4y ago
Your thought experiment does not correspond to what I am talking about. Your thought experiment correspond to the following situation: "someone is intolerant and are doing intolerant actions, but you don't these actions. Maybe these actions are intolerant to level 10, maybe they are intolerant to level 2". In what I'm talking about, you assess the situation and come to the conclusion "Mr A has done an intolerant action of level 2, so, we react by using anti-intolerance of level 2. Mrs B has done an intolerant action of level 10, so, we react by using anti-intolerance of level 10." The "all or nothing" is not working well, I have a thought experiment. Let's say you were a judge at a trial. The evidence has been presented, and it's up to you to make a final decision. The trial contains a lot of proofs and shows that the defendant stolen something. But you can only condemn the defendant for murder. If it's not murder, you need to let him free, and, if he want, he can steal again. If he steal, he may be arrested again, judged again, and released again without sentence, because it's not murder. > And as Popper (and Plato before him) argued, such a distinction requires a despot to determine who is unacceptably "intolerant" and who is merely intolerant of the intolerant That's social study 101, and if you don't realise that this challenge appears in EVERYTHING related to social, then I doubt you can provide anything constructive. Who decide that murder is bad? Who decide that underage alcohol drinking is bad? Who decide that putting employees in situation where they have to choose between bad salaries and not having anything at all is bad? ... There will always be a "despot" who judge what is good or bad. The trick is that this despot should be an active and continuous discussion between citizens not based on emotions, but based on what is fair.

ryan93 4y ago

support for gay marriage has increased massively over my lifetime.

concordDance 4y ago

> Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well It's working quite well really. There are few things that people stick to their guns on in the face of a good argument. For the average person maybe only a dozen or so. > There are still people in US convinced that "the election was stolen" whatever argument is used, and they will never change their mind (they don't have any reason to change their mind: any argument can be claimed being "part of the conspiracy" so they don't have to accept a result that they don't like). This is a bad example, actually providing a compelling argument on a case like this which is built on divergent world view would be the length of a book (to rebuild the erroneous parts of the world view), not an essay. The correct solution is to give people general epistemological tools and habits that are applicable in most situations that allows and encourages them to do properly rigorous research to understand a complex issue. That teaches them what kind of questions they need to ask, what sort of context might be relevant, how to judge reliability of information and ensuring they make their hypothesis disprovable.

cauch 4y ago
People have zero incentive to do difficult effort to learn to accept things that they don't want to even accept in the first place. It's like saying "we should teach people to understand why committing crime is bad, so no one will commit crime anymore"

Stupulous 4y ago

>Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well. Have you had a very different experience of reality than me? Apart from some very niche places, the response to crazy ideas has been insult, ignore, and call for censorship. In the rare case that any good faith response is made, it's an appeal to an authority that the crazies don't respect because it repeatedly and unapologetically lied about someone they do. From my perspective it is abundantly evident that the decades-long push of these people out of the public and into their own spaces is the cause of our current strife. In the aforementioned niche places, election doubts were all but extinct within a month because people actually addressed them at the object level. But I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely curious about where/when you've seen rational argument fall short.

naasking 4y ago

> Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well. Really? Seems to be working great actually, we've had centuries of great social progress and increased liberties, an explosion of scientific knowledge, and religious adherence has never been lower. Rational argument seems to be winning in the long arc of history. Maybe you think there have been some disturbing recent hiccups, but if people seem to have "crazy ideas", you can also consider whether you truly understand where they are coming from.

cauch 4y ago
Well, the centuries of progress you are referring to are sometimes happening in countries that, at the time, were applying a anti-intolerance stance. Laws again libel, for example, exist for centuries in countries where progress grew sometimes faster than in other places. On top of that, for your argument to work, saying that progress happened is not enough. You also need to prove that progress happened _better_ than otherwise. For all I know, we had great social progress, but we would have had super great social progress if more anti-intolerance happened.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Laws again libel, for example, exist for centuries in countries where progress grew sometimes faster than in other places. Ok, I'm not sure what you think this proves. Libel is specifically a charge that's proven using rational argument in a court of governed by rational procedures of evidence. Furthermore, libel is a charge of making false statements that injure someone's reputation. True and false are again established using rational argument, so it seems like you're saying that places that prized rational procedures that enforced the distinction between true and false progressed better than others? That doesn't seem to agree with your thesis. > On top of that, for your argument to work, saying that progress happened is not enough. You also need to prove that progress happened _better_ than otherwise Well the entire history prior to the rise of rational argument consisted of religious wars. Were those environments more tolerant? I don't really understand exactly what alternative to rational argument you're proposing, because it sounds like just another religious war that you're justifying because you are obviously morally superior to everyone else, and this will not at all be like every previous religious crusade in the name "goodness".