5 ms·

Reddit had a pretty great post of a screenshot from tumblr the other day: The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral s

Reddit had a pretty great post of a screenshot from tumblr the other day: The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, *not* as a moral standard, but as a social contract. If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it. In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should *not* be tolerated.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
But who makes and interprets the rules of the contract? If I feel my neighbor has violated the contract in my opinion, are their rights forfeit? This quote simply reduces to "do as I say, or I will harm you" As an experiment, you can imagine someone else's social contract, which you are likely violating. Edit: I vouched for the flagged parent comment, not because I agree, but because I passionately disagree and would like it to be visibly refuted, rather than censored
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  While I was writing a longer post I saw the edit, I think you see the great irony that I also see. I don't think my comment was said in bad faith. I honestly wasn't expecting it to be particularly inflammatory. Yet, some set of people felt my words attacked them and chose to respond in kind with violence (use of flagging to force invisibility). The complete irony of flagging my comment is that it is implicit agreement with the idea that I was stating. At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence? There is an economy of speech and shutting down and not tolerating the abhorrent speech inhibits its replication. Speech that feels good replicates. Speech that feels bad dies. Speech can foment hate and that hate can feel good. Eventually those feelings manifest as actions that that the speakers feel righteous about. At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force? I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence. My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination." My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism. In our game of prisoners dilemma, you are cooperating, and that is admirable. It is best when people cooperate. As long as people are cooperating, everyone should cooperate. Everyone speaking freely and respecting eachother speech is cooperation. At what point do you recognize defection? At what point does bad faith become defection? How do you respond when someone announces their intent to defect? What are the results when two entities get locked in a pattern of defection? I generally believe this is a good faith discussion. I believe all good faith discussions should be protected. Once a discussion becomes bad faith, I think force/violence is the only way to move forward. I guess the other core idea I have is that bad faith is a form of violence.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      >At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence? >At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force Quite simply it, ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. Disagreeable opinions should be addressed at points, but the tools and responses should differ based on the point in time. Force is an appropriate response to immediate violence, but you should be aware that by refusing to talk or engage you are closing the door on compromise or changing minds, and matters will now be settled on the basis of superior force or power, opposed to collaboration. >I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence. I think that is fair. I think most people should be prepared to defend themselves violently if needed. I would not willingly be harmed or be incarcerated when I feel I have done no wrong, and don't think others should either. >My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination." This line of thought assumes that negative memes outcompete positive ones, and costs are required to control them. The question becomes when can costs be imposed, and what are appropriate costs. There is a clear line between withdrawing your support, and interfering with others. That is to say, it is one thing to refuse to talk or support someone who says "gays are an abomination", but another to actively prevent them talking with a willing 3rd party. It is one thing to abandon a friend who says it, and another thing to punch your friend. >My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism. What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence. >I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine. The short answer is that violence is acceptable when you are willing to fight and die over the dispute. By taking violent action, you are agreeing to be subject to violent rules of engagement. Maybe you are already subject to violence, and the other party has defected from pacifism so you don't care, but in other cases the decision may be more difficult. If you have a verbal debate over if "gays are an abomination" and escalate to violence, the other party has a right to defend themselves no matter if you are right or wrong on the verbal topic. The central question when leaving the realm of dialog is if "the juice is worth the squeeze".
LewisVerstappen 4y ago
Like most of the crap on tumblr/reddit, that sounds great as a screenshot but quickly breaks down if you spend 60 seconds thinking about it. - Who gets to define intolerance? Is tolerance vs. intolerance binary (obviously not - it exists on a spectrum that's hard to define). - This completely overlooks the importance of dialogue/debate/negotiation. Pretty important for a functional democracy. - "Paradox of Tolerance" is basically just used by assholes to justify their intolerance of views they disagree with.
- onos 4y ago
  I guess it is a little hard to apply. Eg I thought at first they were saying we should stop tolerating these woke kids cause they’re intolerant. But maybe they meant it’s ok for the kids to block the conservatives cause they were bad first. If we can’t say who was first then … not a great rule. Maybe better to stick with “any infringement bad”
- philsnow 4y ago
  > "Paradox of Tolerance" is basically just used by assholes to justify their intolerance of views they disagree with. This is exactly it. The way the snippet defines things, whichever person calls the other (illicitly-)"intolerant" first gets to be (licitly-)intolerant of the other. It takes two to tango^W disagree.
- syzarian 4y ago
  The Taliban in Afghanistan think women should not be educated. I am intolerant of their views and look disdainfully upon them. This does not make me an asshole. Some views are repugnant enough to merit intolerance. Each person decides for themself whether or not a belief deserves to be met with intolerance. The Paradox of Tolerance can be used by assholes to justify their intolerance but it can also be used by people who are in the right. Perhaps in the present context at Stanford you should be tolerant of the intolerant lest you become one of the assholes.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    That opinion alone does not make you an asshole, however, how you engage with the idea and people who hold it may make you an asshole. If you go and kill 250k Afagan civilians in the name of intolerance, including women an children, you might be an asshole.
31337Logic 4y ago
This is a great example of something that attempts to appear profound but actually isn't.
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  They forgot to write it in Latin.
jacquesm 4y ago
> and their tolerance should not be tolerated. Didn't you mean to write 'intolerance' there instead of 'tolerance'?
msla 4y ago
I like that formulation because it foregrounds the important thing: What is the agreement? What kinds of things are disallowed? Different communities are going to have different ideas about that, and, therefore, exclude different people; making it explicit that it is an agreement with allowed and disallowed behavior, as opposed to trying to pretend that "Be Good" is somehow a workable rule, gets us to the first stage of being able to discuss what behavior is allowed and disallowed, instead of pretending it's obvious, somehow, which only works if the actual goal is a dictatorship with arbitrary rules which disallows that discussion.
hayst4ck 4y ago
I suppose the corollary is that if you cannot agree on a set of ideals and rules to follow, if you are engaged with an entity that refuses to act in good faith, if you have views that are irreconcilable with your opposition, you are left in a situation where might makes right, and you damned well better be sure that it is your side that has might and that you can live with the consequences of war.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
Sounds like rationalization of furthering conflict. Instead of the Twitter generation looking to viral content for wisdom, perhaps they should instead read works of classic philosophy.

Reddit had a pretty great post of a screenshot from tumblr the other day: The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, *not* as a moral s

s1artibartfast 4y ago

But who makes and interprets the rules of the contract? If I feel my neighbor has violated the contract in my opinion, are their rights forfeit? This quote simply reduces to "do as I say, or I will harm you" As an experiment, you can imagine someone else's social contract, which you are likely violating. Edit: I vouched for the flagged parent comment, not because I agree, but because I passionately disagree and would like it to be visibly refuted, rather than censored

hayst4ck 4y ago
While I was writing a longer post I saw the edit, I think you see the great irony that I also see. I don't think my comment was said in bad faith. I honestly wasn't expecting it to be particularly inflammatory. Yet, some set of people felt my words attacked them and chose to respond in kind with violence (use of flagging to force invisibility). The complete irony of flagging my comment is that it is implicit agreement with the idea that I was stating. At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence? There is an economy of speech and shutting down and not tolerating the abhorrent speech inhibits its replication. Speech that feels good replicates. Speech that feels bad dies. Speech can foment hate and that hate can feel good. Eventually those feelings manifest as actions that that the speakers feel righteous about. At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force? I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence. My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination." My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism. In our game of prisoners dilemma, you are cooperating, and that is admirable. It is best when people cooperate. As long as people are cooperating, everyone should cooperate. Everyone speaking freely and respecting eachother speech is cooperation. At what point do you recognize defection? At what point does bad faith become defection? How do you respond when someone announces their intent to defect? What are the results when two entities get locked in a pattern of defection? I generally believe this is a good faith discussion. I believe all good faith discussions should be protected. Once a discussion becomes bad faith, I think force/violence is the only way to move forward. I guess the other core idea I have is that bad faith is a form of violence.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence? >At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force Quite simply it, ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. Disagreeable opinions should be addressed at points, but the tools and responses should differ based on the point in time. Force is an appropriate response to immediate violence, but you should be aware that by refusing to talk or engage you are closing the door on compromise or changing minds, and matters will now be settled on the basis of superior force or power, opposed to collaboration. >I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence. I think that is fair. I think most people should be prepared to defend themselves violently if needed. I would not willingly be harmed or be incarcerated when I feel I have done no wrong, and don't think others should either. >My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination." This line of thought assumes that negative memes outcompete positive ones, and costs are required to control them. The question becomes when can costs be imposed, and what are appropriate costs. There is a clear line between withdrawing your support, and interfering with others. That is to say, it is one thing to refuse to talk or support someone who says "gays are an abomination", but another to actively prevent them talking with a willing 3rd party. It is one thing to abandon a friend who says it, and another thing to punch your friend. >My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism. What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence. >I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine. The short answer is that violence is acceptable when you are willing to fight and die over the dispute. By taking violent action, you are agreeing to be subject to violent rules of engagement. Maybe you are already subject to violence, and the other party has defected from pacifism so you don't care, but in other cases the decision may be more difficult. If you have a verbal debate over if "gays are an abomination" and escalate to violence, the other party has a right to defend themselves no matter if you are right or wrong on the verbal topic. The central question when leaving the realm of dialog is if "the juice is worth the squeeze".

LewisVerstappen 4y ago

Like most of the crap on tumblr/reddit, that sounds great as a screenshot but quickly breaks down if you spend 60 seconds thinking about it. - Who gets to define intolerance? Is tolerance vs. intolerance binary (obviously not - it exists on a spectrum that's hard to define). - This completely overlooks the importance of dialogue/debate/negotiation. Pretty important for a functional democracy. - "Paradox of Tolerance" is basically just used by assholes to justify their intolerance of views they disagree with.

onos 4y ago
I guess it is a little hard to apply. Eg I thought at first they were saying we should stop tolerating these woke kids cause they’re intolerant. But maybe they meant it’s ok for the kids to block the conservatives cause they were bad first. If we can’t say who was first then … not a great rule. Maybe better to stick with “any infringement bad”
philsnow 4y ago
> "Paradox of Tolerance" is basically just used by assholes to justify their intolerance of views they disagree with. This is exactly it. The way the snippet defines things, whichever person calls the other (illicitly-)"intolerant" first gets to be (licitly-)intolerant of the other. It takes two to tango^W disagree.
syzarian 4y ago
The Taliban in Afghanistan think women should not be educated. I am intolerant of their views and look disdainfully upon them. This does not make me an asshole. Some views are repugnant enough to merit intolerance. Each person decides for themself whether or not a belief deserves to be met with intolerance. The Paradox of Tolerance can be used by assholes to justify their intolerance but it can also be used by people who are in the right. Perhaps in the present context at Stanford you should be tolerant of the intolerant lest you become one of the assholes.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That opinion alone does not make you an asshole, however, how you engage with the idea and people who hold it may make you an asshole. If you go and kill 250k Afagan civilians in the name of intolerance, including women an children, you might be an asshole.

31337Logic 4y ago

This is a great example of something that attempts to appear profound but actually isn't.

sacnoradhq 4y ago
They forgot to write it in Latin.

jacquesm 4y ago

> and their tolerance should not be tolerated. Didn't you mean to write 'intolerance' there instead of 'tolerance'?

msla 4y ago

I like that formulation because it foregrounds the important thing: What is the agreement? What kinds of things are disallowed? Different communities are going to have different ideas about that, and, therefore, exclude different people; making it explicit that it is an agreement with allowed and disallowed behavior, as opposed to trying to pretend that "Be Good" is somehow a workable rule, gets us to the first stage of being able to discuss what behavior is allowed and disallowed, instead of pretending it's obvious, somehow, which only works if the actual goal is a dictatorship with arbitrary rules which disallows that discussion.

hayst4ck 4y ago

I suppose the corollary is that if you cannot agree on a set of ideals and rules to follow, if you are engaged with an entity that refuses to act in good faith, if you have views that are irreconcilable with your opposition, you are left in a situation where might makes right, and you damned well better be sure that it is your side that has might and that you can live with the consequences of war.

sacnoradhq 4y ago

Sounds like rationalization of furthering conflict. Instead of the Twitter generation looking to viral content for wisdom, perhaps they should instead read works of classic philosophy.