djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 22:55:59 GMT -5
A truly free society is free to all, and for all, in all cases. A tyranny of the majority is antithetical to true freedom as much as anything else you can imagine. Discrimination in any form is antithetical to a free society. By definition it is a denial of freedom. And a state would have no need to overreach if we truly had freedom and equality. A "tyranny of the majority" argument here is an anachronism. In the most discriminating states, you'd nowhere near a majority of businesses discriminating against protected groups. "Discrimination in any form is antithetical to a free society. By definition it is a denial of freedom." is just a paraphrasing of the "your freedom ends where mine begins" pap I begged you not to regurgitate, and you now owe me a new monitor. I was going to let this go, but....
First, "I don't really have a problem with..." is a much weaker standard than "openly subscribe to the notion." Still, a protected class is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination and abuse. It is not the CAUSE of anything of the sort. Certainly it's the CAUSE of discrimination and abuse. It doesn't change people's hearts and minds. It breeds enmity and resentment towards government. It's at the very root of initiatives like racial quotas, affirmative action, and other "racism of low expectation" programs that declare to the whole world that Joe Minority can't make it on his own and needs a leg up from government. Joe is such a rotten student, rotten employee, rotten customer, etc. that he needs the government to force him into schools, jobs, stores that otherwise want nothing to do with him. That's the message you're sending. Jake's protected status forces Joe Bigot into direct contact with Jake and demands that Joe serve Jake, forcing Joe to mount a facade. But he still hates that lazy black man patronizing his store, and Jake knows it. I've said it to Tenn and I'll say it to you: the idea that the civil rights movement came about as a result of (or was assisted by) changing laws is a myth. Society's hearts and minds changed first, and it was only at the very end of that process that the judiciary codified the change as law. You correctly assert that the protected status is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination, but the status itself is (at best) useless in changing people's hearts and minds. Do you even see the silliness of this particular statement? If protected status really was the result of lobbying by powerful interest groups do you not believe that the NRA among others would have assured that gun carriers were first on the list? (Particularly galling because the Second Amendment in truth does not really stand for an individual right to own guns, despite the Supreme Court screwing up recent rulings.) Firstly, the fact that Americans can go out and buy a rocket launcher on any street corner is indeed the result of constant NRA lobbying. Secondly, few (if any) businesses have ever been bold enough to discriminate based on NRA membership, and I guarantee you that if the practice ever grew in popularity, the NRA would seek (and quite possibly obtain) protected status for its members. Thirdly, the black lobby--buoyed by changing public attitudes--brought about protected status for racial minorities. The LGBT lobby--buoyed by changing public attitudes--brought about protected status for homosexual minorities. Of course I could be wrong, and the truth is that the courts decided to reverse hundreds of years of precedent on a whim, coincidentally at the same time that various rights movements were storming the courthouse doors. no, i am saying that public institutions are REQUIRED to respect free speech, and that private ones are NOT. And now you've said it in English. Thank you. 3rd time is a charm, i guess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 22:57:05 GMT -5
if i can elaborate a bit on this, you don't care WHY people think what they do, and i do. at least that is how i see it. so, you can let go of stuff you see as nonsensical way more quickly than i do. i am driven to understand it, and sometimes that proves pretty much impossible. Yeah, and I have NEVER understood that about you. Definitely masochistic. Hopelessly naïve. i won't argue about the masochistic part. but it would only be naiive if i was hoping to change anyone that i argue with. i am not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 23:01:55 GMT -5
Our government specifically, or any government? Our government decimated plenty of native tribes back in the day, and the German government of the 30s and 40s made the KKK look like amateurs. Our government specifically. There is a part of me that thinks civil rights denial, including at its extreme the killing of people, is at least as bad, if not worse, than either the war against the native tribes or even slavery. We belated accepted that African-Americans had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by ending slavery. Then we did not follow through with granting our fellow citizens equal rights. One could argue that the native tribes were a "they" Even slaves you could argue the same. What we did to "us" feels worse on a gut level. how about depriving people of sufficient income to make end's meet without holding three jobs? how does that rank for you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 23:06:24 GMT -5
this is the "right of survivorship" argument. it is logically valid: a tolerant person need not tolerate intolerance, because it threatens the very idea of tolerance. A person who doesn't tolerate intolerance isn't, by any conceivable definition, a tolerant individual. "Right of survivorship" semantic BS notwithstanding, an individual intolerant of intolerance is a bigot. Or more specifically, such an individual is no more and no less bigoted than any other individual who summarily rejects any worldview that controverts his self-sacred doctrine (in this case, the universal requirement for tolerance). This was a beautiful attempt at turning the self-contradictory nature of the viewpoint into a "logically valid" loophole, though. I'll have to remember to "right of survivorship" the next time I need to exempt my argument from its own postulates. it isn't "my idea", and it is not a loophole. your position never made sense to me, so i researched it and found out WHY: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerancei am quite tolerant, Virgil. but i don't tolerate intolerance as a general rule. i know that YOU cannot reconcile that. but most people can, and it is not logically inconsistent to hold that position. the survival of tolerance depends on NOT tolerating the intolerant. that is my opinion, and it is widely shared. intolerance NEEDS to not be acceptable in society for tolerance to succeed. or, to put it another way, intolerance is a disease that seeks to destroy tolerance. for tolerance to just lie down and take it is to surrender: to cede victory to intolerance. even Gandhi himself saw the value in not turning the other cheek in such cases. now, if you are claiming that the intolerance is so marginal, so unimportant, that it is NO THREAT to the tolerant, then i would agree, it should be tolerated. racism is not an example of that intolerance, however. neither is sexism.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 25, 2015 23:07:34 GMT -5
Our government specifically. There is a part of me that thinks civil rights denial, including at its extreme the killing of people, is at least as bad, if not worse, than either the war against the native tribes or even slavery. We belated accepted that African-Americans had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by ending slavery. Then we did not follow through with granting our fellow citizens equal rights. One could argue that the native tribes were a "they" Even slaves you could argue the same. What we did to "us" feels worse on a gut level. how about depriving people of sufficient income to make end's meet without holding three jobs? how does that rank for you? Holding three jobs to make ends meet is American exceptionalism- just ask Bush It is exceptionalism all right- just not in the way he sees it.
But we are exceptional- our workers put in more hours and have less benefits than any of our peer countries- we treat the middle class like shit and workers as nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet here. Nothing to be proud of.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 23:09:20 GMT -5
how about depriving people of sufficient income to make end's meet without holding three jobs? how does that rank for you? Holding three jobs to make ends meet is American exceptionalism- just ask Bush It is exceptionalism all right- just not in the way he sees it.
But we are exceptional- our workers put in more hours and have less benefits than any of our peer countries- we treat the middle class like shit and workers as nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet here. Nothing to be proud of.
surfing on the backs of wage slaves so that you can own 29 houses is the sort of thing that used to cause peasant rebellions, with all of the associated bloodshed.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 23:09:32 GMT -5
True, I should have expanded more. That was in reference to thinking that everyone's opinion is worth trying to understand. They're not. Really! Accept it. You'll live longer.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 23:14:11 GMT -5
True, I should have expanded more. That was in reference to thinking that everyone's opinion is worth trying to understand. They're not. Really! Accept it. You'll live longer. i see your point. however, if it is not readily detectable WHY someone thinks as they do, i feel compelled to find out. but recently, i found out the answer to that question (in a plurality of cases), which is why my post volume is down about 50% in the last four months.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 25, 2015 23:15:30 GMT -5
List of shit the modern GOP opposes off the top of my head when it comes to employees:
40 hour workweek Worker's Comp Health Care Vacation days Sick days Family leave Maternity leave Overtime Unions Contracts Minimum wage Minimum age OSHA FLSA Holidays Retirement Disability
I miss anything that doesn't involve working a person to death via a cog in the wheel?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 23:17:02 GMT -5
True, I should have expanded more. That was in reference to thinking that everyone's opinion is worth trying to understand. They're not. Really! Accept it. You'll live longer. i see your point. however, if it is not readily detectable WHY someone thinks as they do, i feel compelled to find out. but recently, i found out the answer to that question (in a plurality of cases), which is why my post volume is down about 50% in the last four months. You're welcome.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 23:18:19 GMT -5
List of shit the modern GOP opposes off the top of my head when it comes to employees:
40 hour workweek Worker's Comp Health Care Vacation days Sick days Family leave Maternity leave Overtime Unions Contracts Minimum wage Minimum age OSHA FLSA Holidays Retirement Disability
I miss anything that doesn't involve working a person to death via a cog in the wheel?
yes, break time. but that is a pretty good list.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 25, 2015 23:19:45 GMT -5
Holding three jobs to make ends meet is American exceptionalism- just ask Bush It is exceptionalism all right- just not in the way he sees it.
But we are exceptional- our workers put in more hours and have less benefits than any of our peer countries- we treat the middle class like shit and workers as nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet here. Nothing to be proud of.
surfing on the backs of wage slaves so that you can own 29 houses is the sort of thing that used to cause peasant rebellions, with all of the associated bloodshed. And it should- there is no reason a billionaire should exist in this world- and if one does then there was a breakdown in the system somewhere where someone fucked over labor.
I can't even imagine a billion dollars or someone that has that much. It is an aberration.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 25, 2015 23:22:37 GMT -5
Reminds me of a class I watched- Bill Gates makes so much money that if he dropped a hundred dollar bill his better option is to keep walking- as his time is that valuable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 23:24:55 GMT -5
Reminds me of a class I watched- Bill Gates makes so much money that if he dropped a hundred dollar bill his better option is to keep walking- as his time is that valuable. i think about that all of the time. i don't do yard work, clean the house, and a dozen other things for that reason. it is cheaper to pay someone else to do it, and keep working.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 23:43:29 GMT -5
List of shit the modern GOP opposes off the top of my head when it comes to employees:
40 hour workweek Worker's Comp Health Care Vacation days Sick days Family leave Maternity leave Overtime Unions Contracts Minimum wage Minimum age OSHA FLSA Holidays Retirement Disability
I miss anything that doesn't involve working a person to death via a cog in the wheel?
Oh, man! I could NEVER be a part of the GOP now.
The only one I am truly opposed to is the minimum wage. (I also don't think health care should be tied to employment, but I don't think that counts here.)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2015 23:51:41 GMT -5
... how about depriving people of sufficient income to make end's meet without holding three jobs? how does that rank for you? 8 1/2
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 0:45:49 GMT -5
Oh, I doubt it. But tell me, is that codespeak meaning that you are tired of being beaten?
Just one thing to finish up:
You did bring up the civil rights period, and those were all-too-common before and during that time. Even white kids were being killed down there if they worked for civil rights. So yes, those things are germane. You made them so.
Are we finished now?
I guess so. A person who doesn't tolerate intolerance isn't, by any conceivable definition, a tolerant individual. "Right of survivorship" semantic BS notwithstanding, an individual intolerant of intolerance is a bigot. Or more specifically, such an individual is no more and no less bigoted than any other individual who summarily rejects any worldview that controverts his self-sacred doctrine (in this case, the universal requirement for tolerance). This was a beautiful attempt at turning the self-contradictory nature of the viewpoint into a "logically valid" loophole, though. I'll have to remember to "right of survivorship" the next time I need to exempt my argument from its own postulates. it isn't "my idea", and it is not a loophole. your position never made sense to me, so i researched it and found out WHY: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerancei am quite tolerant, Virgil. but i don't tolerate intolerance as a general rule. i know that YOU cannot reconcile that. but most people can, and it is not logically inconsistent to hold that position. the survival of tolerance depends on NOT tolerating the intolerant. that is my opinion, and it is widely shared. intolerance NEEDS to not be acceptable in society for tolerance to succeed. or, to put it another way, intolerance is a disease that seeks to destroy tolerance. for tolerance to just lie down and take it is to surrender: to cede victory to intolerance. even Gandhi himself saw the value in not turning the other cheek in such cases. now, if you are claiming that the intolerance is so marginal, so unimportant, that it is NO THREAT to the tolerant, then i would agree, it should be tolerated. racism is not an example of that intolerance, however. neither is sexism. It's logically consistent to hold the position if and only if we toss in the caveat that the argument must escape its own postulates. I understand perfectly well that this caveat is necessary. I'm balking because "necessity for logical consistency" is by no means a reasonable justification for including it. Why can tolerance not tolerate intolerance? Because it introduces a paradox. Ergo, we must consider instead "tolerance of everything except intolerance". Is there any greater justification for this omission besides the fact that it's necessary to avoid a paradox? No. I might as well make the argument, "All of humanity's ideas are terrible except for mine." Why are my ideas not terrible? Because I'm human, and if I didn't except them, we'd have to reject them as being terrible. A triumph of logic! Even provided we accept our magical caveat, the "intolerant of the intolerant" are intolerant of far more than just intolerance. Many are intolerant of values they consider too exclusive. Many are intolerant of truth. Many are intolerant of criticism and moral instruction. Many are intolerant of patriotic gestures and symbols, names, ideas, traditions, standards, and a litany of other things. "Intolerance of intolerance" isn't a stable doctrine. The author of @hickle's article summarizes it beautifully as a snake eating its own tail.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 0:55:23 GMT -5
Oh, I doubt it. But tell me, is that codespeak meaning that you are tired of being beaten?
Just one thing to finish up:
You did bring up the civil rights period, and those were all-too-common before and during that time. Even white kids were being killed down there if they worked for civil rights. So yes, those things are germane. You made them so.
Are we finished now?
I guess so. it isn't "my idea", and it is not a loophole. your position never made sense to me, so i researched it and found out WHY: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerancei am quite tolerant, Virgil. but i don't tolerate intolerance as a general rule. i know that YOU cannot reconcile that. but most people can, and it is not logically inconsistent to hold that position. the survival of tolerance depends on NOT tolerating the intolerant. that is my opinion, and it is widely shared. intolerance NEEDS to not be acceptable in society for tolerance to succeed. or, to put it another way, intolerance is a disease that seeks to destroy tolerance. for tolerance to just lie down and take it is to surrender: to cede victory to intolerance. even Gandhi himself saw the value in not turning the other cheek in such cases. now, if you are claiming that the intolerance is so marginal, so unimportant, that it is NO THREAT to the tolerant, then i would agree, it should be tolerated. racism is not an example of that intolerance, however. neither is sexism. It's logically consistent to hold the position if and only if we toss in the caveat that the argument must escape its own postulates. I understand perfectly well that this caveat is necessary. I'm balking because "necessity for logical consistency" is by no means a reasonable justification for including it. Why can tolerance not tolerate intolerance? Because it introduces a paradox. Ergo, we must consider instead "tolerance of everything except intolerance". Is there any greater justification for this omission besides the fact that it's necessary to avoid a paradox? No. I might as well make the argument, "All of humanity's ideas are terrible except for mine." Why are my ideas not terrible? Because I'm human, and if I didn't except them, we'd have to reject them as being terrible. A triumph of logic! Even provided we accept our magical caveat, the "intolerant of the intolerant" are intolerant of far more than just intolerance. Many are intolerant of values they consider too exclusive. Many are intolerant of truth. Many are intolerant of criticism and moral instruction. Many are intolerant of patriotic gestures and symbols, names, ideas, traditions, standards, and a litany of other things. "Intolerance of intolerance" isn't a stable doctrine. The author of @hickle's article summarizes it beautifully as a snake eating its own tail. i disagree. it is not only reasonable, i think it is necessary. and i already said that i can tolerate intolerance, so long as it doesn't threaten tolerance. but that is not the general case. you are basically making the case that tolerance that doesn't tolerate things like racism is not really tolerance at all, and i disagree completely. tolerating the thing that would destroy the principle you believe in is just plain stupid. and i disagree with your last paragraph, as well. i am not intolerant of any of the things you mention, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. where i draw the line is when people's life, liberty and property are harmed by racists and bigots of all kinds. i have no tolerance whatsoever for that. and neither should our government.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2015 1:32:58 GMT -5
Wow! There is ANOTHER area where I can't find a word to disagree with. Imagine that!
I am extremely tolerant of others' thoughts or beliefs. One can think or believe whatever they want. That is a big part of the freedom we have in this country. (Of course, I also have the freedom to dismiss them as idiots when appropriate.)
One also has (or should have) the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Being damaged by bigotry in any form counts as such infringement. So, tolerant of ideas? Yes. Tolerant of actions? Uhhh, not so fast.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 2:00:14 GMT -5
I guess so. It's logically consistent to hold the position if and only if we toss in the caveat that the argument must escape its own postulates. I understand perfectly well that this caveat is necessary. I'm balking because "necessity for logical consistency" is by no means a reasonable justification for including it. Why can tolerance not tolerate intolerance? Because it introduces a paradox. Ergo, we must consider instead "tolerance of everything except intolerance". Is there any greater justification for this omission besides the fact that it's necessary to avoid a paradox? No. I might as well make the argument, "All of humanity's ideas are terrible except for mine." Why are my ideas not terrible? Because I'm human, and if I didn't except them, we'd have to reject them as being terrible. A triumph of logic! Even provided we accept our magical caveat, the "intolerant of the intolerant" are intolerant of far more than just intolerance. Many are intolerant of values they consider too exclusive. Many are intolerant of truth. Many are intolerant of criticism and moral instruction. Many are intolerant of patriotic gestures and symbols, names, ideas, traditions, standards, and a litany of other things. "Intolerance of intolerance" isn't a stable doctrine. The author of @hickle's article summarizes it beautifully as a snake eating its own tail. i disagree. it is not only reasonable, i think it is necessary. and i already said that i can tolerate intolerance, so long as it doesn't threaten tolerance. but that is not the general case. you are basically making the case that tolerance that doesn't tolerate things like racism is not really tolerance at all, and i disagree completely. tolerating the thing that would destroy the principle you believe in is just plain stupid. and i disagree with your last paragraph, as well. i am not intolerant of any of the things you mention, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. where i draw the line is when people's life, liberty and property are harmed by racists and bigots of all kinds. i have no tolerance whatsoever for that. and neither should our government. You can't disagree with me that it's necessary, because I plainly state that it is necessary. As for the doctrine being just plain stupid without the caveat: I agree with you there too. On the final paragraph: your vision of tolerance doesn't extend beyond you. You take it to a more or less reasonable point, given your worldview. Many don't. Consult hickle's article back a few pages for examples. The doctrine isn't stable. There's no secure basis for establishing what shouldn't be tolerated because it's too intolerant. You fall back to your ethical heuristics, which would be great if any two people could apply them and reach the same conclusion. The "allied pridesters" and "social kittens" from the article either don't give a hoot about your heuristics or else they've applied them and reached different conclusions, because their vision of tolerance is notably different from yours, and there's no firm basis on which you can tell them, "Whoa, guys. You're taking this way too far." To make matters worse, because the doctrine admits intolerance of anything the adherent wishes to considers intolerant, it's a trivial exercise to arbitrarily split the world up into "good intolerance" and "bad intolerance" subsets without any justification whatsoever. The bad intolerance is bad because it doesn't tolerate the good intolerance, and the good intolerance is good because it only refuses to tolerate the bad intolerance, which is permissible because of our magical caveat that allows us to imagine the whole thing isn't a philosophical pipe dream. Is humiliating John for saying "Blacks can't swim." good intolerance or bad intolerance? Is castigating Jenny for not working harder to get more girls on the track team good intolerance or bad intolerance? Is running off a white supremacist handing out literature on campus good intolerance or bad intolerance? Is banning "U.S.A! U.S.A!" at sports matches because it has strong nationalist overtones good intolerance or bad intolerance? You decide! Spin the wheel, and whatever it stops on can't be wrong. Evahreeeone's ah winnah, son!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 2:16:33 GMT -5
i disagree. it is not only reasonable, i think it is necessary. and i already said that i can tolerate intolerance, so long as it doesn't threaten tolerance. but that is not the general case. you are basically making the case that tolerance that doesn't tolerate things like racism is not really tolerance at all, and i disagree completely. tolerating the thing that would destroy the principle you believe in is just plain stupid. and i disagree with your last paragraph, as well. i am not intolerant of any of the things you mention, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. where i draw the line is when people's life, liberty and property are harmed by racists and bigots of all kinds. i have no tolerance whatsoever for that. and neither should our government. You can't disagree with me that it's necessary, because I plainly state that it is necessary. As for the doctrine being just plain stupid without the caveat: I agree with you there too. On the final paragraph: your vision of tolerance doesn't extend beyond you. You take it to a more or less reasonable point, given your worldview. Many don't. Consult hickle's article back a few pages for examples. The doctrine isn't stable. There's no secure basis for establishing what shouldn't be tolerated because it's too intolerant. You fall back to your ethical heuristics, which would be great if any two people could apply them and reach the same conclusion. The "allied pridesters" and "social kittens" from the article either don't give a hoot about your heuristics or else they've applied them and reached different conclusions, because their vision of tolerance is notably different from yours, and there's no firm basis on which you can tell them, "Whoa, guys. You're taking this way too far." To make matters worse, because the doctrine admits intolerance of anything the adherent wishes to considers intolerant, it's a trivial exercise to arbitrarily split the world up into "good intolerance" and "bad intolerance" subsets without any justification whatsoever. The bad intolerance is bad because it doesn't tolerate the good intolerance, and the good intolerance is good because it only refuses to tolerate the bad intolerance, which is permissible because of our magical caveat that allows us to imagine the whole thing isn't a philosophical pipe dream. Is humiliating John for saying "Blacks can't swim." good intolerance or bad intolerance? Is castigating Jenny for not working harder to get more girls on the track team good intolerance or bad intolerance? Is running off a white supremacist handing out literature on campus good intolerance or bad intolerance? Is banning "U.S.A! U.S.A!" at sports matches because it has strong nationalist overtones good intolerance or bad intolerance? You decide! Spin the wheel, and whatever it stops on can't be wrong. Evahreeeone's ah winnah, son! not just me. tallguy too. i am gathering from the thumbs up, mmhmm, too. so that is three in a very small universe of this board. i would guess that our position has a pretty strong following. probably not a majority, but who knows? maybe. and i don't care about the groups that don't care about my heuristics, because my rules are not capricious, nor are trapped in a hedonistic or relativistic morass. i have simply carved out one small exemption to the principle of absolute tolerance for those that would destroy that principle, and i think it is completely justified. as to the rest of your argument, i am having difficulty determining what "good intolerance" is, other than "that which abhors the intolerance which results in real harm to non consenting innocents". i don't think it is vague at all. i don't sit around and think about what sort of things i should be intolerant of. so, for me anyway, i think it is quite a stable principle. but for the record, the bad intolerance is not bad because it doesn't tolerate the good intolerance, it is bad because it harms the person or property of non-consenting others. and the good intolerance is not good because it does not tolerate the bad intolerance, but because it does not tolerate the harming of the person or property of non-consenting others. in other words, there is a higher principle at play here than tolerance: the harm that comes from it. if there is no harm, then it should be tolerated, imo. but again, that is not the general case. the general case is that it DOES harm non-consenting others, and therefore should not be tolerated. i realize that you are getting hung up on the language of the argument, which appears contradictory, and that is fine. but please let's not pretend that it is some reltivistic wishy-washy thing. it is actually founded in pretty solid ethics. much more so than tolerating (general, both harmful and benign) intolerance is.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2015 2:41:27 GMT -5
Correct. It is a higher principle involved. There is a reason that the phrase for doctors, "First, do no harm" exists. This may be considered its ethical corollary. First, do no harm, then worry about the rest.
(The original phrasing of the Hippocratic Oath was, "and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.")
Isn't he some type of engineer? And isn't that what they do?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 3:02:58 GMT -5
You're piggybacking (for lack of a better word) your ethical worldview onto "intolerance of intolerance" and attaching caveats that many (most?) adherents couldn't care less about. You also doesn't offer any hints at how you personally make the distinction between good and bad intolerance. Perhaps you can help me out by indicating which of the five examples in #240 you would tolerate. As for you, Tall, and mmhmm being proof of a pretty strong following, you may have noticed that the politics board has dwindled to the 10-or-so most hardcore political wonks of what was originally thousands of members in a very narrow demographic. So no, I don't consider a sample of three individuals dumb enough to hold out as long as we have to be proof of a pretty strong anything. ETA: It also comes to mind that our own board is a very strong selector for tolerance. Specifically, any ex-members who felt the board was too intolerant (or equivalently, too tolerant of bad intolerance) will have left due to being offended at some point and seeing no reprisal for the offender(s). On the other end of the spectrum, ex-members that board admin felt were too intolerant (or equivalently, too tolerant of bad intolerance) have been banned or run off, or else left because they felt the board was too censorious. After a long period of attrition, the only members we would expect to remain are those whose specific level of tolerance closely matches that of the most active moderator. And that's precisely what we observe. I propose we call it the "tolerance satellite effect".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2015 3:28:16 GMT -5
But he did. It is dependent on whether anyone is harmed by it. In your examples, neither John, Jenny, the white supremacist, nor loud sports fans have created any harm in their actions. (I don't see a fifth.) Of course they should be tolerated. From the other side, John and Jenny can ignore the adverse reactions as the ranting of idiots (although John doesn't seem like the brightest bulb either.) The banning of a chant is silly political correctness, but again creates no real harm. The running off of the white supremacist could be said to have harmed him in that his actual liberties were violated, but that is the only one of the four in which I would entertain the notion of harm.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 8:56:06 GMT -5
But he did. It is dependent on whether anyone is harmed by it. In your examples, neither John, Jenny, the white supremacist, nor loud sports fans have created any harm in their actions. (I don't see a fifth.) Of course they should be tolerated. From the other side, John and Jenny can ignore the adverse reactions as the ranting of idiots (although John doesn't seem like the brightest bulb either.) The banning of a chant is silly political correctness, but again creates no real harm. The running off of the white supremacist could be said to have harmed him in that his actual liberties were violated, but that is the only one of the four in which I would entertain the notion of harm. It's great you feel nobody was harmed by John, Jenny, the white supremacist, nor loud sports fans. That and $1.29 will buy you a cheap cup of coffee. Unfortunately, at campuses far and wide across the nation, your younger and more zealously tolerant brethren simply don't agree with you. Ergo the "violence", "microaggressions", "unsafe spaces" referenced by hickle's reason.com article. Don't bother trying to convince me they're wrong, because you'll be preaching to the choir. Rather, start thinking about how you'll explain to them that a conservative refusing to attend a seminar on transgender-specific pronouns isn't actually committing violence against transgendered people. Good luck with them not labeling you an intolerant bigot (and therefore, by our caveat, somebody they can run off a cliff for sake of good intolerance).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2015 9:07:11 GMT -5
... a conservative refusing to attend a seminar on transgender-specific pronouns isn't actually committing violence against transgendered people. ... A leader of a student organization refusing to attend such a seminar is committing "violence". That same individual who refuses to use what is offered in the seminar is not. (Maybe - just thought I would run it up the flagpole and see who chants USA, USA)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 9:28:39 GMT -5
... a conservative refusing to attend a seminar on transgender-specific pronouns isn't actually committing violence against transgendered people. ... A leader of a student organization refusing to attend such a seminar is committing "violence". That same individual who refuses to use what is offered in the seminar is not. (Maybe - just thought I would run it up the flagpole and see who chants USA, USA) You'll have to explain your reasoning behind the first sentence to me. Personally I don't rock the boat, and if I see a "woman" who's obviously a man, or a "man" who's obviously a woman, I use their preferred pronoun and let them live in their happy delusion. At the same time, if Joe Conservative says to heck with entertaining their delusions and uses reality-centric pronouns, I don't want him dragged in front of the magistrates to answer for thoughtcrimes, which is exactly what's happening. If he knows he's not going to use what's offered in a seminar on thoughtcrime, I don't want him dragged in front of the magistrates for refusing the attend the seminar. If anyone ever insists that I call them something other than "he" or "she", it's going to be me dragged in front of the magistrates, because I'm not doing it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2015 9:28:47 GMT -5
But he did. It is dependent on whether anyone is harmed by it. In your examples, neither John, Jenny, the white supremacist, nor loud sports fans have created any harm in their actions. (I don't see a fifth.) Of course they should be tolerated. From the other side, John and Jenny can ignore the adverse reactions as the ranting of idiots (although John doesn't seem like the brightest bulb either.) The banning of a chant is silly political correctness, but again creates no real harm. The running off of the white supremacist could be said to have harmed him in that his actual liberties were violated, but that is the only one of the four in which I would entertain the notion of harm. It's great you feel nobody was harmed by John, Jenny, the white supremacist, nor loud sports fans. That and $1.29 will buy you a cheap cup of coffee. Unfortunately, at campuses far and wide across the nation, your younger and more zealously tolerant brethren simply don't agree with you. Ergo the "violence", "microaggressions", "unsafe spaces" referenced by hickle's reason.com article. Don't bother trying to convince me they're wrong, because you'll be preaching to the choir. Rather, start thinking about how you'll explain to them that a conservative refusing to attend a seminar on transgender-specific pronouns isn't actually committing violence against transgendered people. Good luck with them not labeling you an intolerant bigot (and therefore, by our caveat, somebody they can run off a cliff for sake of good intolerance). Perhaps, but you DID ask him how he PERSONALLY makes the distinction. And I feel quite safe in answering that for him. He personally would make the distinction on that basis regardless of what 'younger zealots' might say.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 9:31:01 GMT -5
It's great you feel nobody was harmed by John, Jenny, the white supremacist, nor loud sports fans. That and $1.29 will buy you a cheap cup of coffee. Unfortunately, at campuses far and wide across the nation, your younger and more zealously tolerant brethren simply don't agree with you. Ergo the "violence", "microaggressions", "unsafe spaces" referenced by hickle's reason.com article. Don't bother trying to convince me they're wrong, because you'll be preaching to the choir. Rather, start thinking about how you'll explain to them that a conservative refusing to attend a seminar on transgender-specific pronouns isn't actually committing violence against transgendered people. Good luck with them not labeling you an intolerant bigot (and therefore, by our caveat, somebody they can run off a cliff for sake of good intolerance). Perhaps, but you DID ask him how he PERSONALLY makes the distinction. And I feel quite safe in answering that for him. He personally would make the distinction on that basis regardless of what 'younger zealots' might say. Fair enough, DJ-by-proxy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 9:35:34 GMT -5
You're piggybacking (for lack of a better word) your ethical worldview onto "intolerance of intolerance" and attaching caveats that many (most?) adherents couldn't care less about. You also doesn't offer any hints at how you personally make the distinction between good and bad intolerance. Perhaps you can help me out by indicating which of the five examples in #240 you would tolerate. As for you, Tall, and mmhmm being proof of a pretty strong following, you may have noticed that the politics board has dwindled to the 10-or-so most hardcore political wonks of what was originally thousands of members in a very narrow demographic. So no, I don't consider a sample of three individuals dumb enough to hold out as long as we have to be proof of a pretty strong anything. ETA: It also comes to mind that our own board is a very strong selector for tolerance. Specifically, any ex-members who felt the board was too intolerant (or equivalently, too tolerant of bad intolerance) will have left due to being offended at some point and seeing no reprisal for the offender(s). On the other end of the spectrum, ex-members that board admin felt were too intolerant (or equivalently, too tolerant of bad intolerance) have been banned or run off, or else left because they felt the board was too censorious. After a long period of attrition, the only members we would expect to remain are those whose specific level of tolerance closely matches that of the most active moderator. And that's precisely what we observe. I propose we call it the "tolerance satellite effect". just the opposite, Virgil. my belief about intolerance of intolerance is SUBJECTED to my higher beliefs. this is actually the same for every poster on the board, so it should come as no surprise. and i not only gave you a clue about it, i explicitly stated how the distinction is made. if i believe that the intolerance results in harm to others, then i don't tolerate it. it is quite a simple standard. not capricious in any way. as for the dwindling, if true, then it proves my point even MORE, as the plurality of those present is even larger. finally, i am not responsible for your FEELINGS, and you are not responsible for mine. hurting your feelings does not meet the standard of harm to person or property. moreover, i have noted over the years that people tend to mask their own personal failures (ie, the inability to argue a point logically) in their FEELINGS to make it seem like the problem lies OUTSIDE THEMSELVES. in other words, many people have left here because they SAY their feelings were hurt. but i think it far more likely that they left because they were incapable of arguing constructively OR they were simply bored at the lack of constructive argument present. so, again, i think you are mistaking argument and disagreement for insult and abuse. they are quite different. if i destroy your argument with my argument, and that hurts your ego or feelings, i am not abusing you, except in your own internal world of feelings, for which YOU are responsible, not i.
|
|