Page 1 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Angnix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,129
Location: Michigan

29 Apr 2021, 3:41 pm

I've been thinking a lot about this lately...

We're supposed to be "tolerant" but I've noticed the tolerant are often intolerant of the intolerant...

Like the Left not accepting white supremacists...

But that's extreme...

How am I supposed to view my neighbor who is so kind to me, but has very intolerant views toward Homosexuality and she's also against Interracial relationships, saying "God doesn't like that! It should be illegal!"

So do we tolerate the intolerant, or is part of tolerance to be intolerant against intolerance?


_________________
Crazy Bird Lady!! !
Also likes Pokemon

Avatar: Image I took from New Pokemon Snap, edited with in-game filters

FINALLY diagnosed with ASD 2/6/2020


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,976
Location: Stendec

29 Apr 2021, 3:44 pm

While I tolerate the existence of the chronically intolerant (no other choice), I do not have to tolerate their opinions or even associate with them -- ghosting them seem to be the best option.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,136
Location: temperate zone

29 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm

Everyone has friends with whom they disagree.

Have a crazy buddy who says racist, and antisemitic things while were watching the tube. Sometimes I will just respond to him by saying something like "YAVOLT! Mein Fuhrer".

I probably tolerate it from him more than from most because he IS rather crazy, and a troubled individual. But the point is that sometimes you can find some joking way to communicate disapproval with someone -without either disowning them, or without getting heavy and trying to reeducate them.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,485
Location: Brisbane, Australia

29 Apr 2021, 5:43 pm

There is said to be a paradox, where the absolute tolerance of all things up to and including intolerance will itself be a form of intolerance, so that to stand for full tolerance you have to be intolerant to intolerance (which sounds like a jumble of words). There probably is best ways to go about it, but letting a bad opinion go unchallenged can only allow a pretty certain bad things to continue.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,019

29 Apr 2021, 5:54 pm

Angnix wrote:
I've been thinking a lot about this lately...

We're supposed to be "tolerant" but I've noticed the tolerant are often intolerant of the intolerant...

Like the Left not accepting white supremacists...

But that's extreme...

How am I supposed to view my neighbor who is so kind to me, but has very intolerant views toward Homosexuality and she's also against Interracial relationships, saying "God doesn't like that! It should be illegal!"

So do we tolerate the intolerant, or is part of tolerance to be intolerant against intolerance?


No you shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, and no that isn't an unresolvable paradox. The solution to that paradox was already resolved by the famous logician Kurt Godel over 70 years ago and the famous thinker Nassim Taleb has written about said solution in his book "Skin in the Game".

Quote:
I was at a large multi-table dinner party, the kind of situation where you have to choose between the vegetarian risotto and the non-vegetarian option when I noticed that my neighbor had his food catered (including silverware) on a tray reminiscent of airplane fare. The dishes were sealed with aluminum foil. He was evidently ultra-Kosher. It did not bother him to be seated with prosciutto eaters who, in addition, mix butter and meat in the same dishes. He just wanted to be left alone to follow his own preferences.
For Jews and Muslim minorities such as Shiites, Sufis, and associated religions such as Druze and Alawis, the aim is for people to leave them alone so they can satisfy their own dietary preferences –largely, with historical exceptions here and there. But had my neighbor been a Sunni Salafi, he would have required the entire room to be eating Halal. Perhaps the entire building. Perhaps the entire town. Hopefully the entire country. Hopefully the entire planet. Indeed, given the total lack of separation between church and state, and between the holy and the profane (Chapter x), to him Haram (the opposite of Halal) means literally illegal. The entire room was committing a legal violation.
As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight fundamentalists.As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight Salafi fundamentalists.
Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?”
This is in fact the incoherence that Kurt Gödel (the grandmaster of logical rigor) detected in the constitution while taking the naturalization exam. Legend has it that Gödel started arguing with the judge and Einstein, who was his witness during the process, saved him.
I wrote about people with logical flaws asking me if one should be “skeptical about skepticism”; I used a similar answer as Popper when was asked if “ one could falsify falsification”.
We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.
So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,917
Location: Illinois

29 Apr 2021, 6:43 pm

Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,938
Location: I'm right here

29 Apr 2021, 6:50 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


So if I were to dox you, post slanderous claims and encourage violence against your person that might potentially be followed through, would you encourage people to argue against me doing that or would you ask the mods to punish me? :mrgreen:

Sometimes the antidote to hate speech isn't just more speech, if the hate speech is substantial enough. Hate speech, at least as per the legal definition in most places isn't just speech that's disagreeable, it's speech that's slanderous and/or incites violence.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,019

29 Apr 2021, 6:53 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


Free speech absolutist is a dying breed because its a paradox that the famous logician Kurt Godel knew was untenable and unviable in the long run:

Quote:
was at a large multi-table dinner party, the kind of situation where you have to choose between the vegetarian risotto and the non-vegetarian option when I noticed that my neighbor had his food catered (including silverware) on a tray reminiscent of airplane fare. The dishes were sealed with aluminum foil. He was evidently ultra-Kosher. It did not bother him to be seated with prosciutto eaters who, in addition, mix butter and meat in the same dishes. He just wanted to be left alone to follow his own preferences.
For Jews and Muslim minorities such as Shiites, Sufis, and associated religions such as Druze and Alawis, the aim is for people to leave them alone so they can satisfy their own dietary preferences –largely, with historical exceptions here and there. But had my neighbor been a Sunni Salafi, he would have required the entire room to be eating Halal. Perhaps the entire building. Perhaps the entire town. Hopefully the entire country. Hopefully the entire planet. Indeed, given the total lack of separation between church and state, and between the holy and the profane (Chapter x), to him Haram (the opposite of Halal) means literally illegal. The entire room was committing a legal violation.
As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight fundamentalists.As I am writing these lines, people are disputing whether the freedom of the enlightened West can be undermined by the intrusive policies that would be needed to fight Salafi fundamentalists.
Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?”
This is in fact the incoherence that Kurt Gödel (the grandmaster of logical rigor) detected in the constitution while taking the naturalization exam. Legend has it that Gödel started arguing with the judge and Einstein, who was his witness during the process, saved him.
I wrote about people with logical flaws asking me if one should be “skeptical about skepticism”; I used a similar answer as Popper when was asked if “ one could falsify falsification”.
We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.
So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.


https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-int ... 1f83ce4e15


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,917
Location: Illinois

29 Apr 2021, 6:57 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


So if I were to dox you, post slanderous claims and encourage violence against your person that might potentially be followed through, would you encourage people to argue against me doing that or would you ask the mods to punish me? :mrgreen:

Sometimes the antidote to hate speech isn't just more speech, if the hate speech is substantial enough. Hate speech, at least as per the legal definition in most places isn't just speech that's disagreeable, it's speech that's slanderous and/or incites violence.


Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!

And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

29 Apr 2021, 7:03 pm

I've been trying not to feed the trolls lately but I felt really sh***y about the prospect of saying nothing in the face of people ignoring racism when I've known people from all over the world & we've gotten quite a lot of work done together.

As far as I'm concerned it was ignorance that killed so many people in this country lately. It could be ignorance regarding the concept of a weapon, race, religion, disability, virus or any other country. It could be anyone ignoring anything.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,318
Location: Derby, UK

29 Apr 2021, 7:07 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!

And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.

But not necessarily the means to do so.

Protecting yourself against liars can be an expensive and time-consuming business.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,917
Location: Illinois

29 Apr 2021, 7:18 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!

And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.

But not necessarily the means to do so.

Protecting yourself against liars can be an expensive and time-consuming business.


True, but I don't understand what exactly you're advocating, here. Could you elaborate?



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,318
Location: Derby, UK

29 Apr 2021, 7:32 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!

And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.

But not necessarily the means to do so.

Protecting yourself against liars can be an expensive and time-consuming business.


True, but I don't understand what exactly you're advocating, here. Could you elaborate?


I wasn't advocating anything, in particular. Just pointing out that being theoretically able to sue for slander or libel isn't necessarily the safeguard many people think it is. To do that you need money, often a LOT of money. Some folk simply don't have the ability to defend their reputation in this way.

It turns into, "Who's got the biggest funds for the lawyer's fees?" rather than a matter of right or wrong.



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 536

29 Apr 2021, 7:32 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


And one more time, for good measure...

VegetableMan wrote:
Everybody has the the right to not tolerate bad ideas, bigotry, racism, etc. But as a free speech absolutionost-- a dying breed these days -- I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


Let's explore that a little, shall we?

Everyone has the right to express their opinions, even if nobody likes that opinion, right? No matter what, you have the right to say it, correct? Even if it offends people, you have the right to say it, correct? No matter what they think of it, you still have the right to say it, correct? Even if it's harsh or critical, it's your opinion, and you have every right to say it, correct? Even if you say something that makes people feel "attacked", you're still just stating your opinion, and if they feel attacked, that's their problem to deal with, right? And no matter what you say, even if they don't like it, clearly the answer is to KEEP talking, not to STOP talking, right? And just because you said something they didn't like, or made them feel attacked, that doesn't mean they have to stop talking. In fact, they should keep talking, right? Because we need MORE speech, not less, right?

Naturally, you extend that same courtesy to everyone else, too. Other people have every right to state their opinions, even if you don't find them "palatable", correct? And no matter how much people disagree with you, that's just their opinions, and you fully support them, even if they disagree with you, right? Sure, you can disagree with them, state your counter opinions, but surely you don't begrudge them the right to state their opinions as you do. And no matter what opinions they share, they have every right to share them, and you certainly wouldn't take them as an attack, or as being silenced - in fact, you wouldn't feel silenced at all, because opinions are just opinions, even if they're "unpalatable", right? We need more speech, as you say, so you'd be ok with more voices speaking up, even if they all were against you, right? As a free-speech absolutist, you'd do all that, right? All free speech is always free all the time, ya? Even when it's all aimed at you, and you don't like it, ya?

Because "everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not", right?

-----

It's always a weird side-move when discussing the tolerance / intolerance paradox or the bullying / bullies paradox, when that one person pops up unusually concerned with the welfare of the abuser over the abused. "Sure, bullying and bigotry are bad, but won't somebody think of the poor marginalized bigots and bullies?! They're people, too!"



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,917
Location: Illinois

29 Apr 2021, 7:43 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!

And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.

But not necessarily the means to do so.

Protecting yourself against liars can be an expensive and time-consuming business.


True, but I don't understand what exactly you're advocating, here. Could you elaborate?


I wasn't advocating anything, in particular. Just pointing out that being theoretically able to sue for slander or libel isn't necessarily the safeguard many people think it is. To do that you need money, often a LOT of money. Some folk simply don't have the ability to defend their reputation in this way.

It turns into, "Who's got the biggest funds for the lawyer's fees?" rather than a matter of right or wrong.


So...what "safeguard" would you recommend?



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,318
Location: Derby, UK

29 Apr 2021, 7:51 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
So...what "safeguard" would you recommend?


Why do I need to recommend anything? It's a truth, regardless, and I'm not an expert in legal matters.

Do you have a solution?