6 ms·

Fascinating article, i'll have to think about it. One thing that stood out to me: > When a friend of mine heard Eich got fired, she didn’t see anything wrong

• plagiarist 3y ago
  I have no idea how "intolerance" is remotely coming to overlap "white" or "American" except in the delusions of some fringe lunatics who believe both that Confederate statues must remain up (to protect heritage) and also history about black people must not be taught.
  • dustincoates 3y ago
    There's an entire section in TFA before the quote that explains why it's relevant (it's not what you are assuming here).
    • zogrodea 3y ago
      Would you mind explaining what TFA means, as I've seen that acronym quite a bit here? "The f-g article"?
      • jfengel 3y ago
        Precisely. Sometimes you'll hear it expanded as "The Fine Article" or just "The Article". Often, it really does mean just "the article". People use the acronym without expanding it out or thinking too deeply about it. At one point, decades ago, it may have connoted some kind of hostility (e.g. "If you had read the f---ing article..."), and it's still meant that way in "RTFA" (read the f---ing article, meaning "that was already answered, so you clearly haven't read the thing that we're supposed to be discussing") But now, it's mostly just a kind of in-joke, and TFA means nothing more than "the article", with the F entirely silent.
        • zogrodea 3y ago
          Thank you for the answer. Had encountered the acronym about the manual before, but this one is a first.
      • bawolff 3y ago
        The friendly article, if you don't like curse words.
        • zogrodea 3y ago
          Appreciate the answer and alternative acronym-expansion. Thanks.
        • epiccoleman 3y ago
          "the featured article" is my favorite non-profane expansion
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > > “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Doesn’t sound quite so noble now, does it? > But if instead you phrase it as "i can tolerate anyone except those who attack my in group", it is perhaps not noble but much more understandable, as everyone protects their own. But that's not the same thing. The outgroup is the group that is attacked by the ingroup, not the group that attacks the ingroup.
  • lalaland1125 3y ago
    Eich was attacking the ingroup though. He worked to remove rights from gay people in the state of California.
  • bawolff 3y ago
    Everyone always thinks the other side "attacked" first. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.
    • neaden 3y ago
      I mean, this is obviously untrue. To take the example of homosexuals and homophobia, in what way did homosexual people "attack" first or how are they one of the two tangoing.
      • aidenn0 3y ago
        The question isn't "did both sides attack" it is "do people on both sides feel attacked." I'm sure there are plenty of Russian's who feel attacked by the Ukraine; that doesn't mean the Ukraine started the current war. Consider this mindset (to be clear, not my mindset): 1. The US is, and always has been a Christian nation 2. Homosexuality is unchristian 3. For the past 60 years, anti-christian liberals have been trying to (and in large part succeeding) in legalizing many sinful behaviors, at least one of which is tantamount to murder (i.e. abortion) 4. Following the legalization of the sinful behaviors comes normalization via indoctrination in schools From this mindset, it's easy to see how e.g. legalization of homosexual behaviors (and then of homosexual marriage) is seen as an attack. As far as attacking first, well that's simple: all those people who attacked, beat, or killed homosexuals were isolated incidents and e.g. the raid on Stonewall Inn was just the cops doing their job (these people were breaking the law, after all). See e.g.: https://source.wustl.edu/2021/08/cultural-backlash-is-lgbtq-progress-an-attack-on-christianity/ https://source.wustl.edu/2021/08/cultural-backlash-is-lgbtq-...
• rovolo 3y ago
  Yeah, this line of argument is a perfect example of the "Motte and Bailey" fallacy. The structure of this argument works just as well if you replace "intolerance" with "segregationist" or "misogynist". The only takeaway I have from this argument is "it's easier to condemn things which you disagree with". There isn't any discussion of whether the intolerant action is actually intolerant or harmful. --- Digression, this is a pretty audacious way to minimize Apartheid. > South African whites and South African blacks ... So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences. Every single human conflict can be described as "small differences" because humans are very similar to each other. Also, it's harder to be in conflict with people far away from you.
  • consilient 3y ago
    > Every single human conflict can be described as "small differences" because humans are very similar to each other. He's obviously talking about differences which are small by human standards. The rest of the paragraph: > If you want to know who someone in former Yugoslavia hates, don’t look at the Indonesians or the Zulus or the Tibetans or anyone else distant and exotic. Find the Yugoslavian ethnicity that lives closely intermingled with them and is most conspicuously similar to them, and chances are you’ll find the one who they have eight hundred years of seething hatred toward.
    • rovolo 3y ago
      How were the differences between the colonial SA Afrikaners and the local SA Zulu smaller than the differences between the Yugoslavs and the Zulu, other than proximity?
      • consilient 3y ago
        The relevant outgroups animating Afrikaner nationalism aren't the Zulu (or Xhosa, or Tswana, etc.) as a whole, but rather the rapidly growing black working class on the one hand, and English-speaking elites on the other. Of course Afrikaner society was and had long between hideously racist, but so was the British colonial government. It was the perceived "threat" of racial integration (and the attendant economic competition) driven by English liberals that made race the primary focus of Afrikaner politics. Of course if you mean smaller differences that weren't in part ultimately caused by proximity, there aren't any, but that's almost tautological.
• lalaland1125 3y ago
  > "i can tolerate anyone except those who attack my in group" Yeah, this essay is misleading about why Eich was so disliked. Eich wasn't just homophobic, he actually worked to help eliminate rights for gay people in the state of California by donating money to the corresponding political campaign.
  • jefftk 3y ago
    > he actually worked to help eliminate rights for gay people in the state of California by donating money to the corresponding political campaign Note that 52% of California voters also worked to help eliminate rights for gay people in the state, by voting for Proposition 8. As strange as it seems now, this was a very common position in 2008.
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Note that 52% of California voters also worked to help eliminate rights for gay people in the state, by voting for Proposition 8. Yes, and those that publicly and proudly done so and were unrepentant about it would have been problematic for the role for the same reason as Eich (and, in most cases, for lots of other reasons, some more significant, as well.) “The rule you propose would also rule out lots of people who would never have been under consideration for the role” is, here, a valid observation, but not any kind of counterargument.
• glitchc 3y ago
  Except those people may be overestimating (kindly) or pretending (unkindly) the harm they suffer from those attacks. To consider a defensive action as ethically sound, the defender must show real harm. Otherwise it's vulnerable to abuse and opens up lines of reasoning along the following statement (with gay and straight flipped around): "As a gay person, I hate straight people as they threaten my sexuality/orientation/way of life."
  • aidenn0 3y ago
    Even this is difficult. There is a case to be made that Trump being president for 4 years caused predictable actual harm to some people. Does this mean that considering anybody who voted for Trump (and especially those who voted for him in 2020) is a legitimate target for hate? This is a non-hypothetical because I have heard this exact argument advanced without irony.
    • 6D794163636F756 3y ago
      I think the legal concept of mens rea or a similar concept is applicable here. For example, I'm a type one diabetic and will cut off a friendship with people who vote republican because they agree I should not be able to afford insulin. My grandparents vote republican because taxes and don't consider the other effects. Basically it comes down to intent and knowledge for me. If causing harm is part of why someone voted a specific way I think that it's fair to hold them partially accountable for that harm then it is carried out.
    • ifyoubuildit 3y ago
      > There is a case to be made that Trump being president for 4 years caused predictable actual harm to some people. How many presidents are there for whom this wouldn't be true? Are there any? You could probably expand this to most positions of any significant power.
• Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Yeah but you also need to look at the facts; ARE you or people in your group, in fact, under attack? This is the right-wing fallacy / mental gymnastics. They take it personal. They're not under attack, but their policies - the ones that cause quantifiable harm - are.
  • bawolff 3y ago
    I mean,i don't think any dispute has ever been solved by imploring the other side to think hard about how they are actually wrong. Presumably they really believe they are under attack so that is why they act like they were under attack. If they ernestly believe they are under attack telling them to think deeper about it is not going to change their minds. Humans don't work that way.
• Zandikar 3y ago
  This article stinks of that assertion/misunderstanding that "Tolerant of all but the intolerant" is a paradox or contradiction. It's not. It's a social contract and if you violate it you are no longer covered or protected by it. Put another way, give everyone a basic level respect until they demonstrate they aren't deserving of it. It's worth mentioning you can take punitive, intervening and/or remedial action against someone and still be respectful.
  • aaroninsf 3y ago
    This 1000x. I'm very weary of the at times bad faith, at times ignorant, assertion of this "paradox." For me it seems rooted in a sort of Angloamerican philosophical analytic realism I associate with e.g. Quine, which is IMHO not just inane but pernicious in as much as it contributes to such things as this "debate" and, say, Constitutional Originalism. Words are how we use them. A civil open society has not just a right but a need to defend itself from those whose actions (words and deeds alike) threaten the stability of the society itself, not to mention, trespass on the rights and wellbeing of its constituent members. This is so obvious I find it hard to find examples I am willing to accept as "ignorance." Bad faith, albeit cloaked from introspective view perhaps by willful refusal to do so, is far more common.
    • mistermann 3y ago
      Have you noticed the interesting way most everyone in this thread who has taken an adversarial stance uses language? If not it's a shame, because it is really something to see.
  • riversflow 3y ago
    It is a paradox. His point about ISIS vs Republicans is pretty on the money. I think a lot of people in the West are so saturated with tolerance that they don't even recognize what it is. There are countries in the world where being an atheist or being raped is punishable by death and plenty of people there cheer on. In that light, republicans I know are very tolerant people on the whole, possibly even more so than the average Democrat. They have strong feelings about what the government should or shouldn't do, but I haven't met one yet who would actually advocate killing someone for things we think about in terms of tolerance. If you truly think that the entire republican party, a huge portion of the country's population, have all broken the social contract, I don't think that social contract is worth much.
• CivBase 3y ago
  What does it even mean for a "group" to "attack" another "group"? What constitutes an attack? How does someone have to be related to the attacker or victim to be considered part of the group? Are all Muslims guilty of attacking all Americans? Are all Americans guilty of attacking all Afghans? Does a "gamer" saying mean things about a girl on the internet justify intollerance against anyone who plays games? Is it all just framing used to justify hating people for bad-think? I'd be lying if I said I didn't get it. Democracy is interesting. It enables sufficiently large groups to turn their thoughts into actions through the works of a few representatives. That's a good argument for bad-think being dangerous. But on the other hand, refusing to tollerate someone for bad-think surely leads to resentment and division until one side inevitably gains the upper hand and uses it to crush the other.
  • polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > Is it all just framing used to justify hating people for bad-think? Do you also think donating money to the Taliban counts as merely bad-think, or is that limited to when the cause is homophobic only?
    • CivBase 3y ago
      No that's a specific action done by individuals.