4 ms·

You should consider what you just wrote and and what it says about you.

by barking 13y ago

SwellJoe 13y ago
One shouldn't feel obligated to be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people with power and privilege against those who have less power and privilege (like a wealthy, straight, white male attacking LGBTQ folks). That's a very common tactic of bigots to claim that being told they should stop oppressing people is oppressive toward them. Demanding an end to oppression is not oppressive toward those who currently benefit from that oppression.
- barking 13y ago
  The linked page doesn't mention gays once, it's about programming. The post I replied to, seemed to me to suggest that everthing OSC says about anything can be discounted because he is judged to be anti-gay. We're not going to listen to him on anything from now on unless perhaps he recants and does penance for his sins
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    There are other good reasons not to listen to OSC, like having never run a software company or been a significant participant in the software industry. But, I think it's OK to point out that the guy is a backward bigot and is driven by his religion more than good sense; it speaks to his character and to his approach to the world. If his views on life, society, law, and everything else, are shaped by a fairy tale (and they are), I'd like to know it.
- Lolecule 13y ago
  It's not being tolerant of intolerance to consider his views on an entirely disparate topic. If his views on LGBTQ people were being discussed, then yes they are repellant and I would say so, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Judging all of someone's views as wrong because some of their views are wrong is foolish. As for the article itself, I found it to be overly stereotypical and lacking in actual insight.
- 127 13y ago
  Yet we should be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people who are not wealthy, straight, white or male?
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Exactly! The modern progressive in a nutshell.
  - Crito 13y ago
    We should never tolerate intolerance, unless we are considering the intolerance of intolerance. That intolerance, and only that intolerance, must be accepted: "The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." --Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
- grammaton 13y ago
  The problem with this line of argumentation is that you really don't need to invoke vague nominalizations like "power" and "privilege" to argue against this "i'm being oppressed because of my homophobic beliefs" nonsense. When you do, it invariably leads to the sorts of responses you're seeing from the likes of 127 and aaronem below.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
It says that I believe a man who holds violent* and irrational hatred in his heart is unlikely to be a rational thinker, and his words on any subject should be give careful consideration. I stand by that, thank you very much. *Yes, violent. Card has literally advocated armed revolution against any federal government that legalizes gay marriage.
- barking 13y ago
  So what conclusions did you come to after 'carefully considering' the linked article that required you to openly denounce the man. Or is it the case that you feel it necessary to denounce him whenever his name is mentioned?
- aaronem 13y ago
  Having once had my arm broken by words on the subject of armed revolution, I unreservedly endorse your use of the adjective 'violent' in this case.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    "Advocating violence" = "violent beliefs" has been a feature of the English language for ages, and I was using it correctly. I'm sorry if you don't like the way the language works, but it's not my fault.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      Refusing to participate in the ideological degradation of language is everyone's responsibility.

You should consider what you just wrote and and what it says about you.

by barking 13y ago

You should consider what you just wrote and and what it says about you.

One shouldn't feel obligated to be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people with power and privilege against those who have less power and privilege (like a wealthy, straight, white male attacking LGBTQ folks). That's a very common tactic of bigots to claim that being told they should stop oppressing people is oppressive toward them. Demanding an end to oppression is not oppressive toward those who currently benefit from that oppression.

barking 13y ago
The linked page doesn't mention gays once, it's about programming. The post I replied to, seemed to me to suggest that everthing OSC says about anything can be discounted because he is judged to be anti-gay. We're not going to listen to him on anything from now on unless perhaps he recants and does penance for his sins
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  There are other good reasons not to listen to OSC, like having never run a software company or been a significant participant in the software industry. But, I think it's OK to point out that the guy is a backward bigot and is driven by his religion more than good sense; it speaks to his character and to his approach to the world. If his views on life, society, law, and everything else, are shaped by a fairy tale (and they are), I'd like to know it.
Lolecule 13y ago
It's not being tolerant of intolerance to consider his views on an entirely disparate topic. If his views on LGBTQ people were being discussed, then yes they are repellant and I would say so, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Judging all of someone's views as wrong because some of their views are wrong is foolish. As for the article itself, I found it to be overly stereotypical and lacking in actual insight.
127 13y ago
Yet we should be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people who are not wealthy, straight, white or male?
- aaronem 13y ago
  Exactly! The modern progressive in a nutshell.
- Crito 13y ago
  We should never tolerate intolerance, unless we are considering the intolerance of intolerance. That intolerance, and only that intolerance, must be accepted: "The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." --Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
grammaton 13y ago
The problem with this line of argumentation is that you really don't need to invoke vague nominalizations like "power" and "privilege" to argue against this "i'm being oppressed because of my homophobic beliefs" nonsense. When you do, it invariably leads to the sorts of responses you're seeing from the likes of 127 and aaronem below.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

It says that I believe a man who holds violent* and irrational hatred in his heart is unlikely to be a rational thinker, and his words on any subject should be give careful consideration. I stand by that, thank you very much. *Yes, violent. Card has literally advocated armed revolution against any federal government that legalizes gay marriage.

barking 13y ago
So what conclusions did you come to after 'carefully considering' the linked article that required you to openly denounce the man. Or is it the case that you feel it necessary to denounce him whenever his name is mentioned?
aaronem 13y ago
Having once had my arm broken by words on the subject of armed revolution, I unreservedly endorse your use of the adjective 'violent' in this case.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  "Advocating violence" = "violent beliefs" has been a feature of the English language for ages, and I was using it correctly. I'm sorry if you don't like the way the language works, but it's not my fault.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Refusing to participate in the ideological degradation of language is everyone's responsibility.