The Paradox of Tolerance; a discussion.

[fskimospy]

Wrong again.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/1920s/Econ20s.htm

Germany tried to do just that.

Reparations and the occupation of Germany's most productive industrial reasons and the resulting strike were the cause of Germany's issues in the early 20's. Social spending supported by foreign loans was quite successful in raising Germany's standard of living through the mid 1920's until the collapse of the US banking sector in 1929 caused US banks to make a run on German debts. Later when unencumbered by these issues (repudiating reparations, etc) Germany massively increased military and social spending, making it one of the first countries to emerge from the Great Depression.

 

[Ancalagon44]

@realibrad

A better example is perhaps the various liberal speakers who are critical of Islam. I can't remember names off hand, but there are many of them. Many of them are of Islamic cultural origins themselves.

These speakers have been denied the opportunity to speak at liberal universities in the UK and the USA. They speak in favour of women's rights, but are denied the opportunity to speak because they are critical of Islam. Now, a very important thing to note is that these people are themselves liberal - they are not right wing or Nazis at all. Many of them are prominent feminists. But they are denied the opportunity to speak simply because they might criticize Islam.

This strikes me as the ultimate injustice. Say what you will about James Damore, but should a liberal feminist be at least be allowed to speak critically about her religion? Apparently not according to modern liberal academics.

And this is the entire problem with tolerance not being universal. Modern liberals are not universally tolerant - they are tolerant towards things that they agree with. It is not that they are intolerant of intolerance - rather, they are tolerant towards the things they already agree with. This means that, in a modern liberal society, there is no room for growth or change. The only opinion allowed is one that the status quo deems acceptable.

See also: feminists trying to criticize feminism - same result. Lifetime speaking ban at any liberal university, often fired from their positions.

 

[bshole]

Sorry, can you lay out the steps from A - > Z on those? I'm not following your train of thought at all here.

I think one of the department heads got fired or reprimanded just this year for stating that glacier retreat was catastrophic in one of our national parks. I could easily see that escalating into more draconian actions.

 

[bshole]

@realibrad

A better example is perhaps the various liberal speakers who are critical of Islam. I can't remember names off hand, but there are many of them. Many of them are of Islamic cultural origins themselves.

These speakers have been denied the opportunity to speak at liberal universities in the UK and the USA. They speak in favour of women's rights, but are denied the opportunity to speak because they are critical of Islam. Now, a very important thing to note is that these people are themselves liberal - they are not right wing or Nazis at all. Many of them are prominent feminists. But they are denied the opportunity to speak simply because they might criticize Islam.

Many of those speakers are operating under the threat of actual death from Islamic extremists. They are risking their lives to speak the truth and some liberals are openly hostile towards them. It is frankly baffling to me.

 

[justoh]

Why yes, because personality and comedy win out over actual facts and history.

Europe banned hate speech after WWII for good reason. And it's been wildly successful for them without any of the slippery slope consequences claimed.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Well, it was something like 175 - 25 with about 40 undecided before they started. 12 years ago people understood and appreciated free speech more. It was also an audience of people better than tech dummies. Point being, personality and comedy weren't dispositive. The people opposing the motion make a much better case than you ever could, so it's a worthwhile watch whichever side you're on. I can see the appeal. That Matsuda woman particularly represents everything wrong with you people. You should study her to be even more annoying. You probably have, indirectly.

 

[jackstar7]

I think one of the department heads got fired or reprimanded just this year for stating that glacier retreat was catastrophic in one of our national parks. I could easily see that escalating into more draconian actions.

IF that's what he's talking about, then I get it.

But if so, then I just wish it had been stated as such.

 

[realibrad]

So you didn't read my link.

Cool.

Nope, I missed it. I went back and read through it. Indeed you have found a scientist that disagrees with the memo. She is for sure an outlier and seems to be misreading what is in the memo. For example, the very first part says this.

His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e. innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a blank slate). This nature versus nurture dichotomy is completely outdated and nobody in the field takes it seriously. Rather, modern research is based on the much more biologically reasonable view that neurological traits develop over time under the simultaneous influence of epigenetic, genetic and environmental influences. Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture.

That is a strange response to this which was in the memo.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

• They’re universal across human cultures
• They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
• Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
• The underlying traits are highly heritable
• They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

I say its strange because he clearly is not saying its an either or cause. Saying something has clear biological causes does not mean biology is the only cause. If that is what he believes then he would be wrong. The way we can know is that he says they often have clear biological causes. Often does not in any way mean always. It thus is strange that she would argue his point is always when he says often. Often fits with the data, always does not.

But, at worst the guy is citing conflicting data which goes to my point. If the data labeled as wrong/hate speech, would we only be allowed to research things that are agreed upon from the governing body? Seems like a bad idea.

 

[realibrad]

What's fascinating is that the people railing against bans on hate speech will lie, lie and lie again about how it's impossible to do that without the likelihood of abuse, yet there are numerous countries where those anti-hate speech measures are in place and haven't been significantly abused, like Canada and Germany. It's a bit like the myths they tell about gun control laws: they claim the laws won't work, yet they clearly do in countries that have them. And if you don't think anti-hate laws in other countries are a great fit, tweak them -- don't throw your hands up and pretend nothing can be done.

What about Lindsay Shepherd from Wilfrid Laurier University? There you have authority figures reprimanding someone for having a discussion.

 

[realibrad]

Reparations and the occupation of Germany's most productive industrial reasons and the resulting strike were the cause of Germany's issues in the early 20's. Social spending supported by foreign loans was quite successful in raising Germany's standard of living through the mid 1920's until the collapse of the US banking sector in 1929 caused US banks to make a run on German debts. Later when unencumbered by these issues (repudiating reparations, etc) Germany massively increased military and social spending, making it one of the first countries to emerge from the Great Depression.

Do you agree or disagree that the economic situation is what allowed Hitler to rise? It seems like the argument I was responding to was that unregulated speech was somehow close to being an equal factor.

 

[realibrad]

@realibrad

A better example is perhaps the various liberal speakers who are critical of Islam. I can't remember names off hand, but there are many of them. Many of them are of Islamic cultural origins themselves.

These speakers have been denied the opportunity to speak at liberal universities in the UK and the USA. They speak in favour of women's rights, but are denied the opportunity to speak because they are critical of Islam. Now, a very important thing to note is that these people are themselves liberal - they are not right wing or Nazis at all. Many of them are prominent feminists. But they are denied the opportunity to speak simply because they might criticize Islam.

This strikes me as the ultimate injustice. Say what you will about James Damore, but should a liberal feminist be at least be allowed to speak critically about her religion? Apparently not according to modern liberal academics.

And this is the entire problem with tolerance not being universal. Modern liberals are not universally tolerant - they are tolerant towards things that they agree with. It is not that they are intolerant of intolerance - rather, they are tolerant towards the things they already agree with. This means that, in a modern liberal society, there is no room for growth or change. The only opinion allowed is one that the status quo deems acceptable.

See also: feminists trying to criticize feminism - same result. Lifetime speaking ban at any liberal university, often fired from their positions.

Depends. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to have a platform. If a private university wants to do that, I don't think we should stop them. We can speak out about it and make an argument to try and influence the public, but government should not force anything. You can't force tolerance. You have to accept that people will disagree. What freedom of speech creates is an arena to try and find the best argument to use.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What it amounts to is that the intolerant must, at some point, be thwarted from reaching their goals if we're to have a free egalitarian society. When that happens, they'll whine piteously, of course, claim to espouse the things they hate the most.

Of course we all agree what and who is "right" and "wrong", right?

While I understand limits on tolerance, who makes these decisions? Perhaps I should be the ultimate arbiter of that looks like. I'm should think you'd find that acceptable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Damn, necroed.

 

[jackstar7]

Nope, I missed it. I went back and read through it. Indeed you have found a scientist that disagrees with the memo. She is for sure an outlier and seems to be misreading what is in the memo. For example, the very first part says this.



That is a strange response to this which was in the memo.

I say its strange because he clearly is not saying its an either or cause. Saying something has clear biological causes does not mean biology is the only cause. If that is what he believes then he would be wrong. The way we can know is that he says they often have clear biological causes. Often does not in any way mean always. It thus is strange that she would argue his point is always when he says often. Often fits with the data, always does not.

But, at worst the guy is citing conflicting data which goes to my point. If the data labeled as wrong/hate speech, would we only be allowed to research things that are agreed upon from the governing body? Seems like a bad idea.

I'm done. She is for sure an outlier... because you've polled more than 5 people on this?

 

[realibrad]

I'm done. She is for sure an outlier... because you've polled more than 5 people on this?

No, she is a outlier from what I have seen. Also, why start with you are done, and then ask a question? Do you feel I have not been discussing this with you in good faith?

 

[351Cleveland]

The whole discussion is premature. Way too many people think to tolerate, to accept, and to embrace are all the same thing. They aren't. Take a problem we are having in our neighborhood with a development tying into our streets (we don't want it, too much traffic). We lost at the planning commission last week.:

We accept that we will have more cars coming through - meaning that we don't like it, but acknowledge it will happen.
We tolerate the additional traffic - meaning we allow the cars to travel unimpeded through the neighborhood, even though we don't like it.
We do NOT embrace the additional traffic - meaning we don't approve of the additional traffic, even though we cannot stop it.

Tolerance, by its definition, means allowing something you DO NOT like or agree with. I had to sit through a lecture on anal sex in college (the whole COLLEGE had to). I tolerated it, accepted I had to listen to it, but did not embrace the subject material or the fact that it was required. That is TOLERANCE. What most people want is me to embrace it and say "Yeah, anal sex, right on!"

So be careful. When someone says conservatives or liberals don't TOLERATE different view points, chances are they are completely wrong about conservatives

 

[pmv]

@realibrad

A better example is perhaps the various liberal speakers who are critical of Islam. I can't remember names off hand, but there are many of them. Many of them are of Islamic cultural origins themselves.

These speakers have been denied the opportunity to speak at liberal universities in the UK and the USA. They speak in favour of women's rights, but are denied the opportunity to speak because they are critical of Islam. Now, a very important thing to note is that these people are themselves liberal - they are not right wing or Nazis at all. Many of them are prominent feminists. But they are denied the opportunity to speak simply because they might criticize Islam.

This strikes me as the ultimate injustice. Say what you will about James Damore, but should a liberal feminist be at least be allowed to speak critically about her religion? Apparently not according to modern liberal academics.

And this is the entire problem with tolerance not being universal. Modern liberals are not universally tolerant - they are tolerant towards things that they agree with. It is not that they are intolerant of intolerance - rather, they are tolerant towards the things they already agree with. This means that, in a modern liberal society, there is no room for growth or change. The only opinion allowed is one that the status quo deems acceptable.

See also: feminists trying to criticize feminism - same result. Lifetime speaking ban at any liberal university, often fired from their positions.

I'm starting to think it doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of 'liberals' (vs 'non liberals'?). There are many different 'sides' with many different agendas and forms of self-interest involved in these sorts of arguments. The use of the term 'liberal', as if it's a simple, easily-defined category, or even an especially important one, is itself a marker of a particular worldview (the word 'centrist' is even worse - people do love to declare that policies that are in the interests of people like themselves are necessarily 'centrist' or 'moderate', while anything that favours any other group is 'extremist' by definition).

The whole contemporary 'no platform' movement in universities began with quasi-Trotskyists, for example, yet other far-leftists actively disparage it - its relationship to 'liberalism' is very unclear.

 

[realibrad]

I'm starting to think it doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of 'liberals' (vs 'non liberals'?). There are many different 'sides' with many different agendas and forms of self-interest involved in these sorts of arguments. The use of the term 'liberal', as if it's a simple, easily-defined category, or even an especially important one, is itself a marker of a particular worldview (the word 'centrist' is even worse - people do love to declare that policies that are in the interests of people like themselves are necessarily 'centrist' or 'moderate', while anything that favours any other group is 'extremist' by definition).

The whole contemporary 'no platform' movement in universities began with quasi-Trotskyists, for example, yet other far-leftists actively disparage it - its relationship to 'liberalism' is very unclear.

So do you think we should have better terms or are you saying that there is not a bimodal distribution of people's beliefs? I have honestly not seen any study of the 2nd, and will now start looking.

While I go digging, I would say that just because there are many different sides, if the vast majority fall into two groups I see no problem with how it would be structured.

 

[Moonbeam]

An objective mind can see difference and its relevance. A programmed mind will see difference as superiority and inferiority.

Objectivity can be acquired by work and dedication. Programming travels by infection.

 

[bshole]

An objective mind can see difference and its relevance. A programmed mind will see difference and superiority and inferiority.

Objectivity can be acquired by work and dedication. Programming travels by infection.

LoL, like an "objective" mind is a physical possibility. Every mind is subjective almost by definition....

 

[Amused]

The problem with some of the activists is they single out Islam when the real problem is the local culture. Take Saudi Arabia for example.

It's cherry picked bullshit. It's like saying the KKK represents all Christians.

These folks, no matter how liberal they think they are are doing exactly what the radicals do. Demonizing entire groups for the actions of the most extreme.

 

[Moonbeam]

LoL, like an "objective" mind is a physical possibility. Every mind is subjective almost by definition....

There is only one state of programmed free. There are millions of kinds of being programmed. This is self evident to the empty.

Think of it like this:

An objective mind can see difference and its relevance> If I can transcend my programming other can too.

A programmed mind will see difference as superiority and inferiority.> A deprogrammed mind would be a superior mind to mine so it does not exist.

Objectivity can be acquired by work and dedication. Programming travels by infection.

 

[pmv]

So do you think we should have better terms or are you saying that there is not a bimodal distribution of people's beliefs? I have honestly not seen any study of the 2nd, and will now start looking.

While I go digging, I would say that just because there are many different sides, if the vast majority fall into two groups I see no problem with how it would be structured.

I think I'm saying the latter.

When I was growing up, 'liberal' was not a significant category. You were either a socialist or a conservative, and 'liberals' were a small minority of mostly ineffectual folk who didn't quite know which side they were on and didn't like all this upsetting conflict. "Social" issues (like sexuality) were not particularly prominent in politics.

It's not like that any more, but I still struggle to see 'liberalism' as an important category. These days it's more that it seems to me to be far more complicated than just mutually-exclusive 'sides'. There are divisions in all teams, most parties seem to be unstable coalitions that fudge everything in order to hold themselves together (just look at the state of our - I mean the UK's - two main parties regarding Brexit - both party leaders are not being open about what they actually believe, and both know if they don't maintain ambiguity they might lose half their voters), and not only are there more than two 'teams', different ideologies are not even commensurable, that is, their schemas for dividing the world up are different, they exist in different 'spaces'.

 

[realibrad]

I think I'm saying the latter.

When I was growing up, 'liberal' was not a significant category. You were either a socialist or a conservative, and 'liberals' were a small minority of mostly ineffectual folk who didn't quite know which side they were on and didn't like all this upsetting conflict. "Social" issues (like sexuality) were not particularly prominent in politics.

It's not like that any more, but I still struggle to see 'liberalism' as an important category. These days it's more that it seems to me to be far more complicated than just mutually-exclusive 'sides'. There are divisions in all teams, most parties seem to be unstable coalitions that fudge everything in order to hold themselves together (just look at the state of our - I mean the UK's - two main parties regarding Brexit - both party leaders are not being open about what they actually believe, and both know if they don't maintain ambiguity they might lose half their voters), and not only are there more than two 'teams', different ideologies are not even commensurable, that is, their schemas for dividing the world up are different, they exist in different 'spaces'.

To me I think the terms have lost their meaning because people are not logically consistent. Thinking about it, I don't know if there is a term that is accurate, but here it sure seems like 2 main sides. Those two sides seem to exist only to oppose each other.

 

[bradly1101]

Intolerance to correct societal intolerance. Hmmm. What would MLK say? He tolerated intolerance, even fell to it, which shined a bright light on the intolerance (no direct reaction to it). Many minds changed, some didn't.

 

[pmv]

To me I think the terms have lost their meaning because people are not logically consistent. Thinking about it, I don't know if there is a term that is accurate, but here it sure seems like 2 main sides. Those two sides seem to exist only to oppose each other.

I think such 'logical consistency' when it comes to politics is a chimera. Such consistency only exists within some overarching ideology that purports to correctly analyze everything. The worst of such ideologies aren't even aware that they are ideologies, but even those that admit it are always imperfect and incomplete (and eventually hit a crisis).

I'm tending to think that people don't have 'logic' they have self-interest. Different groups have different self-interests and hence have different views and may embrace different ideologies as a concequence (I tend to mostly notice 'economic class' as the most visible characteristic of such groups, but that's just my bias, it's certainly not the only attribute involved). And circumstances constantly change so those self-interests and the views that follow from them are a moving target as well.

There are far, far more than 'two sides', because people have far more than just one, bimodal, characteristic that determines where their self-interest lies. Just look at the constantly clashing arguments over race vs gender vs class vs generation, say. And they keep ***ing changing! Who can keep up? It's why politics is nearly impossible, and certainly never-ending.