3 ms·

I'm much like you, but its not just merely intolerant people (everyone is intolerant, racist, has some measure of bias), its only really highly intolerant peopl

• kypro 3y ago
  > its only really highly intolerant people which I exclude. Do you actively exclude them? I try to be their friends I just inevitably end up saying something that makes them mad. > I do vote however, I vote for the things I find desirable and people I find honnorable. I don't have well adjusted opinions on what the ideal society would look like for the average person. For example, you're assuming that tolerating homosexuality is what society desires. While I agree with you that this should be what society desires because I don't see any real harm to homosexuality, the same could also be true of other things which you may not be in favour of. I asked here recently what is wrong with teenage pregnancy and why are people so mean to those who want to be teenage mums? You could argue it's not in the child's best interest, but then neither is having poor parents or two dads. You could argue that the teen should have a chance at an education and career, but you could argue family is equally if not more important. This is the problem with my extreme tolerance. I'm tolerant of things that 99.9% of people here would find problematic. Even on the gay-rights issue I question if the state should be allow enforce tolerance towards gay people with force. It seems intolerant to use force on business owner who morally disagrees with homosexuality and doesn't want to serve those they see as "evil". And while I could come up with arguments why we should use state force here I'm too tolerant of both positions to form a strong opinion on it myself. So I suppose my default position here would be closer to "let individuals discriminate against individuals" rather than the state taking either side. I have too many anti-social views to be feel confident that me voting would be in the best interest of society. I'll argue in favour of homosexuality, but I'm not willing to vote and attempt to make the state force my views on others.
  • em-bee 3y ago
    why are people so mean to those who want to be teenage mums funny you should say that, i just had a similar argument over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37391008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37391008 to expand on what you say: there is no outgroup. there can't be an outgroup. we are all part of a community and we need to learn to get along with everyone in that community. even criminals. they need of course be appropriately punished and maybe put under surveillance to protect others, but they also need a chance at rehabilitation, and that can't happen if we place them in an outgroup. the same goes for everyone else who we think is harmful to others. we need to work with these people, and help them find their place. what bothers me most is when groups who claim that they want to build a new society then go and exclude people they don't like or that don't like them. that was the trouble with communism for example. a social philosophy that wants to reach everyone must be able to integrate people that reject the philosophy itself. if it can't then it is not suitable for any community to adopt. i am not sure if my trail of thought here makes sense, but the conclusion seems to be that any general social philosophy must be built on tolerance and openness and work to eliminate discrimination. anything else will result in tyranny against those that don't fit in. or to put it differently, if we allow for anyone to be excluded from a community, that means we allow for someone to be socially isolated, which is a punishment that noone should have to suffer permanently.
  • Aloha 3y ago
    Your opinions are perfectly valid, even if I might disagree - my belief firmly is that the world gets better with more participation - not less. Particularly here in the states, if we could get 90% of the voters who show up for the general to show up in the primary, the results of elections would look different in general. Even as a gay person, I'm generally anti-authoritarian to an extreme - I dont think you can legislate politeness or ethics, that said, my belief, quite firmly is if you're operating any kind of public accommodation, you waive certain rights by doing so. I cant dictate to individuals that they accept me, I can reasonably dictate that they tolerate my presence in the public sphere. What this works out to is in my eyes if people operate a facility where the general public might dwell, sell to the general public, or employ people outside of close family, they have to follow some modicum of equality. If people dont want to do that, they dont have to do those things. I'll note that leads whole kinds of self employment wide open to folks too. Rights are not absolutes either those to demand tolerance or to be intolerant, much of whats wrong with the states is people treating all rights as absolutes.