I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues: "you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too. And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down."
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
"you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people." This is probabaly the best advice ever on these people. The paradox of tolerance on full...
"you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
This is probabaly the best advice ever on these people. The paradox of tolerance on full display.
I've seen takes on that idea that are something like this: "The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard, but as a social contract. If someone does not...
Exemplary
I've seen takes on that idea that are something like this:
"The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard, but as a social contract. If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it."
Not sure where it's from, a family member shared it and the image also said "Inspired by 'tolerance is not a moral precept' by Yonatan Zunger". Probably worth giving Zunger a look. Edit: After...
Not sure where it's from, a family member shared it and the image also said "Inspired by 'tolerance is not a moral precept' by Yonatan Zunger". Probably worth giving Zunger a look.
Edit: After 5min of research, he appears to be an engineer who's been at Google, Twitter, and Microsoft. Has written on tech ethics and such and it sounds like (again, after 5min) he's got fairly reasonable views.
I'm assuming that the original long post that ends with this statement is essentially a pro-Nazi person who is claiming that Nazis have "reasonable arguments" and I guess sarcastically saying that...
"you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
I'm assuming that the original long post that ends with this statement is essentially a pro-Nazi person who is claiming that Nazis have "reasonable arguments" and I guess sarcastically saying that people think Nazis are "terrible, awful people" because people secretly think Nazi's arguments are "reasonable." Now maybe I'm confused, but it seems like for some reason people are actually going forward with his manipulative statement? Or maybe his blatantly passive-aggressive manipulation is so clearly nonsensical most people would rather ignore or mock him than address him. I do understand, a tolerant person can rather simply explain why Nazi beliefs are bad: Nazis choose to selectively disrespect and harm human life. I feel like the author played a trap to distract from the light we could shine on his long post: what are the Nazis saying that is reasonable?
We can simply say "I am not tolerating intolerance" and ignore this person. It is understandable to do so; it is frustrating to argue with someone who is so conniving and manipulative that they can persuade people to become intolerant. Not tolerating intolerance can mean ignoring it, that is certainly a way to not tolerate it. I think ignoring intolerance allows for vulnerable people, who are more easily manipulated, to be able to get drawn in by intolerant people, like Nazis. That is why I think it is important not to just ignore the intolerant, but to shine a light on them. Ask them to explain their beliefs.
I think we may fear this, because maybe some think "what if they're right, and their arguments are reasonable," but in all honesty, I doubt it. I doubt many people truly believe that certain groups of people are inferior to others. I believe we can be brave and say "we hear your beliefs and we don't accept your beliefs." We do not have to tolerate intolerance, and we can acknowledge that intolerance exists and state that we won't stand for it.
I think you're confused, and should look at sealioning and JAQing off. Part of the story highlights this a bit, The quote is basically saying, "nip it in the bud", not "Nazis have reasonable...
I think you're confused, and should look at sealioning and JAQing off. Part of the story highlights this a bit,
"And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer."
The quote is basically saying, "nip it in the bud", not "Nazis have reasonable arguments"
Yeah, maybe I am confused. I don't understand the giant quote post's point. It literally says Nazis have reasonable arguments? And I disagree with that; I don't think Nazi ideology is reasonable.
Yeah, maybe I am confused. I don't understand the giant quote post's point. It literally says Nazis have reasonable arguments? And I disagree with that; I don't think Nazi ideology is reasonable.
Basically it says, a guy (person 1) is sitting in a bar. A guy comes in, unbeknownst to the first person, wearing Nazi memorabilia. The bartender immediately tells him to get out, and the Nazi...
Basically it says, a guy (person 1) is sitting in a bar. A guy comes in, unbeknownst to the first person, wearing Nazi memorabilia. The bartender immediately tells him to get out, and the Nazi says, "I'm a paying customer, not doing anything just sitting around" (this is what the story implies is the reasonable point, that for most people it's okay to sit at a bar as a paying customer. From person 1's perspective, this is reasonable because he doesn't know that the Nazi is a Nazi. The bartender does, so he knows that the Nazi isn't a reasonable person, and needs to immediately remove him from the bar.)
These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too. And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down."
The quote is basically saying that some Nazis like to pretend that they're reasonable, polite people who are "just asking questions", but once you start entertaining them and letting them in your space, more of them will show up. So it's better to ban and kick Nazis out the moment they show up. Does that make sense?
Oh yeah, I understand that a business does not need to serve people with hateful values. I understand hateful people can appear polite. If hateful people choose to wear symbols of hatred, others...
Oh yeah, I understand that a business does not need to serve people with hateful values. I understand hateful people can appear polite. If hateful people choose to wear symbols of hatred, others can clearly see that those people believe in advocating for hatred and no one is obligated to interact with hateful people.
I think I was thinking in a more abstract sense, like pointing out and shutting down intolerant behavior on the Internet or in conversation.
The principle applies on the Internet too. "Free speech" platforms tend to trend toward hate speech and incivility. Why? Because: In the absence of moderation, hate speech and incivility goes...
The principle applies on the Internet too. "Free speech" platforms tend to trend toward hate speech and incivility.
Why? Because:
In the absence of moderation, hate speech and incivility goes unpunished
Normal, civil users are pushed out by the hate speech and incivility
Voat was a good example of this. It was an earlier Reddit alternative that gained some popularity during a past Reddit scandal. But as a "free speech" platform, it had little in the way of moderation. Banned hate subreddits would often move to Voat, and so that's what the platform became known for - all the reprehensible shit that wasn't allowed on Reddit.
Effective moderation and rules are critical to nip this in the bud. If bigots take a foothold, they push out everybody else and turn the platform into a platform for bigots.
You can't always tell if somebody is a Nazi or has sympathetic views, but if they're bigoted in one way, they're probably bigoted in others. Bigoted behaviour should be made unwelcome so that bigots are either forced to change their behaviour, or leave.
To add a personal anecdote: One day, an old high school friend of mine joined an established circle of friends that I'd been hanging out with for years. Only, my old friend from high school had...
To add a personal anecdote:
One day, an old high school friend of mine joined an established circle of friends that I'd been hanging out with for years. Only, my old friend from high school had changed.
As we sat down for dinner the pub, he was all to eager to tell me that Adolf Hitler was actually a misunderstood good guy who was trying to protect the German national identity by evicting the Jews. The death camps were apparently built by the Soviets to frame Hitler for genocide.
After dinner, I looked through his Facebook page for the first time in a decade and it was full of racist dog whistles, primarily against the Jews.
I didn't want anything to do with this old friend, but my friend circle thought differently. He was "just asking honest questions", and they didn't see anything wrong with that.
So I ditched them all and stopped hanging out with any of them. A friend of a Nazi is a Nazi as far as I'm concerned.
I am so confused. One of us completely misread the copypasta I think. I was under the impression the bar story was about not tolerating a single nazi because as soon as you do, they multiply. By...
I am so confused. One of us completely misread the copypasta I think.
I was under the impression the bar story was about not tolerating a single nazi because as soon as you do, they multiply. By the time you realize your bar is full of nazis, it's too late.
The "reasonable" argument in the story was that the second person sat down, tried to order a drink, and (edit) was immediately told to leave. They then "reasonably" claimed "hey I'm not doing anything".
...The reason the "reasonable" argument wasn't tolerated was because the person was wearing Nazi regalia, and was thus the first attempt at gaining a nazi foothold in the bar.
Not quite. The point is the Nazi never has a chance to say anything before being ejected Then the justification is offered that he would initially come across as reasonable, bring friends, and...
Not quite. The point is the Nazi never has a chance to say anything before being ejected
Then the justification is offered that he would initially come across as reasonable, bring friends, and before you knew it it's a Nazi bar and you can't kick them out.
The implication is that the bartender had seen this happen before. It's more a parable of why hate speech needs to be stopped before it can even happen than a specific series of events that happened in one place, but this has played out in many places.
EDIT: I never saw the source thread but checked it. It apparently happened, but my point is the same.
Yeah, I think I misunderstood the overall point by reading too far into certain aspects of the story. So I was quite confused, hah. I appreciate people taking the time to explain. I missed the...
Yeah, I think I misunderstood the overall point by reading too far into certain aspects of the story. So I was quite confused, hah. I appreciate people taking the time to explain. I missed the forest for the trees.
I agree that wearing Nazi regalia is a sign that a person is likely going to be antagonistic. "I'm not doing anything," is not the whole truth when someone is wearing Nazi regalia. They choose to wear symbols of intolerance; I'm not sure why they act confused when people do not want to associate with them.
It's just an act to use sneaky "reasonableness" to get that first foothold. Anyone foolish enough to let it slide has already lost. Thus the whole reason for giving it zero tolerance.
I'm not sure why they act confused when people do not want to associate with them.
It's just an act to use sneaky "reasonableness" to get that first foothold. Anyone foolish enough to let it slide has already lost. Thus the whole reason for giving it zero tolerance.
All-or-nothing mentality is not healthy. WaPo is far from an impartial reporter, and the word "far-right" has been overused so badly it really has no meaning any more. Discarding the "Twitter bad"...
All-or-nothing mentality is not healthy.
WaPo is far from an impartial reporter, and the word "far-right" has been overused so badly it really has no meaning any more.
Discarding the "Twitter bad" news they've been pushing consistently for a long time, this new monetization program for creators on Twitter is an interesting change to existing social media paradigms and I'll be paying attention to see how it turns out for them.
What? Did you read the actual article? The creators they mentioned ARE far right creators, I don't see how you can define them as anything else. And All -or-nothing mentality when it pertains to...
What? Did you read the actual article? The creators they mentioned ARE far right creators, I don't see how you can define them as anything else.
And All -or-nothing mentality when it pertains to Nazis should be the default. As the old saying goes, if you have a dinner table with 10 people and a Nazi, you have a dinner table with 11 Nazis.
it seems like you're making a personalized statement - that you don't understand what "far-right" means anymore, due to overuse - but phrasing it as a generalized, universal truth. speak for...
the word "far-right" has been overused so badly it really has no meaning any more.
it seems like you're making a personalized statement - that you don't understand what "far-right" means anymore, due to overuse - but phrasing it as a generalized, universal truth.
speak for yourself - I'm pretty confident I still understand the meaning of "far-right", despite its increased coverage in news stories.
I don't believe that is what that means. That's an extremist take. Obviously there's a paradox of tolerance and not tolerating intolerance is a proper course of action in some cases, but to say...
I don't believe that is what that means. That's an extremist take.
Obviously there's a paradox of tolerance and not tolerating intolerance is a proper course of action in some cases, but to say "not tolerate intolerance in the least" is extremist because humans aren't perfect and aren't always going to be able to rationally act or perceive things perfectly down to the "least" scale of tiny details, where things can be misidentified as intolerance, and those who take this mindset end up becoming more intolerant unjustly than those they perceived to have been intolerant.
I view a lot of human behavior similar to how humans act with revenge. In the case of revenge it is like a bloodthirst, where it's justifiable to want harm done to someone who killed someone else. It's OK to make prison rape jokes because that person is a murderer...but then people cannot simply just be satisfied with this, it continues to expand because there's something satisfying in revenge and people want that satisfaction and will look for ways to justify getting it, so now it's not just murderers, it's pedophiles, and it's rapists, and at one point it was drug dealers who are ruining our children etc., and many more people who have committed other types of crimes, all the way down to the point where some people don't care what happens in prisons or how horrible the conditions are etc. because anyone in prison, regardless of why, isn't deserving of anything better and it brings about satisfaction to think that people are getting punished for wrongdoings.
In the case of having a tolerant society, saying that the paradox of tolerance demands intolerance even the perceived lowest forms of intolerance is creating a satisfaction in the mind of the idea that you can eradicate intolerance as long as you maintain hyper vigilance. Not to mention it becomes a way to practice intolerance in an acceptable way, much like punishment/revenge is an acceptable way to practice violence because your subjects are somehow deserving of it.
Again, I do think there's situations where being intolerant of intolerance is beneficial to society, and people coming together and recognizing the more dangerous of those behaviors to not accept is worthwhile, but to blindly embolden people to take intolerance to its most extremes because it's for a good cause, well that's just going to end badly.
This is a lot of perceived nuances and hedging about the fallibility of the human condition being thrown in the defense of people like: Naw, these people have made their beds. They're not wayward...
This is a lot of perceived nuances and hedging about the fallibility of the human condition being thrown in the defense of people like:
Ian Miles Cheong, Benny Johnson, Andrew Tate
Naw, these people have made their beds. They're not wayward souls making an oopsie or ill-thought post somewhere. These are people committed to their thoroughly detestable political projects and it's perfectly fine to say: No, I don't think rewarding these people in our society is good. We shouldn't accept their ilk in our spaces and companies that give them platforms and support are bad.
That was a statement I made in my other comment. Apparently I needed it add it to both comments... I assumed from context it was obviously more of a general comment but sometimes it needs to be...
Also just to be clear, I'm more of a generalist. I don't care about far right twitter influencers nor is any of what I said above specifically to defend them. To what extent their goals are obvious, I don't know, I don't use Twitter or follow them so maybe some are obvious and being intolerant of them is fine, again my argument here isn't specifically about these people, its the general idea being promoted that I'm targeting.
That was a statement I made in my other comment. Apparently I needed it add it to both comments... I assumed from context it was obviously more of a general comment but sometimes it needs to be specified more clearly for people with pitchforks out.
But that's the overall context of this thread. I guess we're in a mismatch of what the expectations and scope this discussion should be in. Perhaps that is my fault. I'm about to be vastly...
But that's the overall context of this thread. I guess we're in a mismatch of what the expectations and scope this discussion should be in. Perhaps that is my fault.
I'm about to be vastly reductionist here but the gist is:
Twitter rewards bad actors
User up above says we should be intolerant of them and cites "paradox of intolerance" a pretty common trope online nowadays.
You disagree with it calling it extreme and discuss at length how tolerance should be extended in a nuanced fashion to prevent extremist thinking.
That's all fine and good, but misses the point a little I think. What you've saying applies much more coherently to judgement of most people. But that's now what's happening here. We're judging, harshly, people whose livelihood is making the world more hateful.
I agree that the overall context of the thread is about these particular twitter influencers, but I believe the scope changed with the comment I was replying to and I simply went further with that...
I agree that the overall context of the thread is about these particular twitter influencers, but I believe the scope changed with the comment I was replying to and I simply went further with that broadening of scope rather than going back to the specifics of how it ties into the subjects that prompted the topic being posted.
User up above says we should be intolerant of them and cites "paradox of intolerance" a pretty common trope online nowadays.
Specifically what they said was "not tolerate intolerance in the least" which my interpretation of that was, any intolerance no matter how little was not to be tolerated, which goes beyond the bounds of what the subject of the topic is which was describing people who might be more on the extreme side of intolerance (the far right twitter influencers), thus expanding the scope beyond the most extreme people. The issue I have is that words make it sound simple, black and white, there are things that are intolerant, and things that aren't, and it's simple to not tolerate the intolerant, but in reality the actual behaviors we're attempting to describe beyond the obvious ones become harder to define as simply "intolerant", so while it might work for things that aren't "the least", it generally doesn't work for things that would fall a lot closer to "the least".
I don't think it's your fault, but I thought that comment was expanding the scope of the discussion to be more about how to treat and view intolerance more broadly than what specifically applied to these far right twitter influencers. and in several comments I feel that was also a theme, the art of how to treat intolerance was more the focus, rather than how to treat specifically these twitter influencers.
Not sure if I understood you properly, but my point is that even in that mindset, it only works with some things, the more obvious things. It's a lot easier to ascertain the goal of someone...
Not sure if I understood you properly, but my point is that even in that mindset, it only works with some things, the more obvious things. It's a lot easier to ascertain the goal of someone wearing a swastika or a white robe and hat etc., but when you start examining the less obvious cases, determining what goal someone has is not as clear.
That's what prompted my comment, was someone saying "in the least" as though they were talking about intolerance in the lowest forms, but at that point even if you correctly identify something as being intolerant, which isn't always that straightforward, how do you know what someone's goal is? For example, my comment is refuting the idea that you should be able to blindly be intolerant of others perceived intolerance and that could be perceived as something you should be intolerant of because I'm undermining the goal of "ignoring reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people". My goal isn't to be a terrible awful person, or make things worse for anyone, but if you view that perspective to be what makes society better and I'm antagonistic to that, you might think anything short of hanging me out to dry is tolerating my antagonism to that notion.
I view the underlying behaviors there to be similar to how people behave when it comes to punishment and revenge, and I state this to ground it in something that is more visceral but also more obvious. It's not hard to look around and see people stating nasty things and garnering some support because the subjects of their nastiness are perceived to be deserving. The nasty behavior is justified. We can see that we have to strike a balance in the justice system, where we can say it's unjust to confine someone for the rest of their lives, but then we can justify it because they're a danger to society. Confining someone who is dangerous for the safety of everyone else is sensible, even if taking away others ability to survive on their own is inherently problematic. It's a paradox as well. Killing someone is bad, unless it's in self defense, then it's justified. These are paradoxes we've already gotten past. IMO it's more obvious what happens when you apply that same extremist take to this because we've already seen elements of it. We can handle the paradox adequately as long as we don't go to extremes with it. The extremes are when you justify prison rape, or put kill bounties on drug dealers or other criminals as what was happening in the Phillipines, or most things that happen outside judicial systems (and even judicial systems have their own problems). It
So I'm fine with the paradox of violence in the case of self defense or restraining someone who is a danger to others or things like that, just as I can be fine with the paradox of intolerance and being intolerant of those when you can reasonably ascertain the goals of someone to be doing something that is going to result in awful things. I just think highlighting the flaws of human behavior and how people get carried away because it's easy to begin justifying awful things for the perceived right reasons makes for bad people. To some extent, it's the nature of how the intolerant people come about, they feel justified to being intolerant because their targets of intolerance are deserving.
Also just to be clear, I'm more of a generalist. I don't care about far right twitter influencers nor is any of what I said above specifically to defend them. To what extent their goals are obvious, I don't know, I don't use Twitter or follow them so maybe some are obvious and being intolerant of them is fine, again my argument here isn't specifically about these people, its the general idea being promoted that I'm targeting.
It's extreme because of the particular wording that I mentioned, which is "not tolerate intolerance in the least", which I interpreted that as, anything that could be perceived as intolerance even...
It's extreme because of the particular wording that I mentioned, which is "not tolerate intolerance in the least", which I interpreted that as, anything that could be perceived as intolerance even in the slightest should not be tolerated.
Just generally citing things as intolerant but not trying to dive into what things could be considered intolerant makes it sound easy, black and white, there are behaviors and thoughts that are intolerant, and ones that aren't, and we can just easily identify the intolerant ones and all the rest go untouched, but in reality it doesn't work like that. Is there much of anything to do with humans or human behavior that once you go beyond the extremes there is a easily identifiable line in the sand? It might have been once upon a time people thought that even within biology would be a great example of this, there's an easily identifiable line, man and woman, XY and XX chromosomes and nothing else right? But then we learn that isn't true, and there's other things that happen biologically that make what some might have thought to have been a black and white thing into something that's not, and biology is probably a little more straightforward than linguistics or psychology/sociology where it's even more grey areas. Being able to ascertain meaning from what someone says can be harder than digging into their genetics. So the further you get from extremes, it's a lot harder for people to rationally and accurately identify intolerance and rationally and accurately scale their tolerance for that behavior, especially if you embolden people to seek out even the least intolerance because its the righteous path.
Then I can only simply reiterate the other remarks in my comments after further clarifying the above.
I wanted to let you know that your additional comments in this topic and the patience with which you've made them has been very valuable. It really helps strengthen your original point and its...
I wanted to let you know that your additional comments in this topic and the patience with which you've made them has been very valuable. It really helps strengthen your original point and its call for nuance.
I think it was easy to see "extremist" in your original comment, in a thread already about extremism, and jump to some conclusions that weren't at all what you intended. Assuming I'm reading you correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) you're trying to bring voice to the idea that there is a very large gradient of behavior that could potentially fall close to the hypothetical line of "intolerance", and that interpretations in that area can easily happen due to misunderstandings, miscommunications, and misalignment of experiences. As such, being slightly more delicate about approaching intolerance, especially in gray area cases, is a warranted and better response than meeting it with rigid inflexibility.
I see what you're advocating for as basically an extension of the principle of charity. Intolerating intolerance is easy in obvious and extreme cases, but we'll run into false positives if we don't meet some of the others with a gentler approach first.
I would agree with this, but the definition of "intolerant" has also been changing rapidly these days. Who knows where it will be next year? The problem with this paradox is that it allows people...
I would agree with this, but the definition of "intolerant" has also been changing rapidly these days. Who knows where it will be next year?
The problem with this paradox is that it allows people to break social norms while still holding a sense of moral righteousness. This has historically been a very bad combination and I predict it will play out the same ways again.
If you honestly think our current "speech is violence" and "silence is violence" attitudes have been consistent through the last 10, even 5 years of cultural values then I'm not sure what to say.
If you honestly think our current "speech is violence" and "silence is violence" attitudes have been consistent through the last 10, even 5 years of cultural values then I'm not sure what to say.
Thanks for your energy with trying to pin down what the user is trying to say, but I genuinely believe that the user is utilizing some form of Sealioning and that it'll be easier to report and...
Thanks for your energy with trying to pin down what the user is trying to say, but I genuinely believe that the user is utilizing some form of Sealioning and that it'll be easier to report and move on.
Hey at least you're getting replies. I appreciate your energy and am grateful that at least it feels like the general sentiment is that Nazi sympathizers are bad.
Hey at least you're getting replies. I appreciate your energy and am grateful that at least it feels like the general sentiment is that Nazi sympathizers are bad.
I'm not trying to restart the discussion, but I wanted to add one thing: I'm making genuine comments here. This is not sealion-ing or something. As a conservative person I'm here walking on...
I'm not trying to restart the discussion, but I wanted to add one thing:
I'm making genuine comments here. This is not sealion-ing or something. As a conservative person I'm here walking on eggshells trying to advocate for my position in a way that won't immediately be dismissed or shouted out.
I'm still standing in the same place politically as I was 8 years ago as a liberal college kid. Suddenly positions like free speech are "far right" and the shift has not gone unnoticed. I'm going to keep speaking up because the rhetoric I keep hearing from people around me is getting more and more inflammatory all the time. I feel like I'm pouring shotglasses of water on a structure fire.
People are allowed to disagree. Disagreement is not violence. If the first response to any conflict is to dismiss it or condemn it, then there's no actual conversation being had and it's just a shouting match. And the winner of that isn't who's right, it's just who has the most goons in the room with them.
It's not "disagreement" when you (in a general sense, not you specifically) hold beliefs that dehumanize others. That's the line. And it's pretty easy to identify.
It's not "disagreement" when you (in a general sense, not you specifically) hold beliefs that dehumanize others.
That's the line. And it's pretty easy to identify.
"Direct call for genocide" Quote from the article you're linking: "The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has undertaken an effort across several departments to establish a legal...
"Direct call for genocide"
Quote from the article you're linking:
"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has undertaken an effort across several departments to establish a legal definition of sex under title IX"
If this were actual genocide then yes, I would absolutely stand in opposition to that with every other reasonable person. But this isn't genocide, it's not even a physical act. It's changing definitions in a legal document.
You said I'm defending aggressors. Who struck whom? These are words on a computer screen. Mean words, sure, but that makes them "violence" the same way that thoughts and prayers are "help." Which is to say, not at all.
You're still catastrophising. "Intentional destruction" is changing definitions in a legal document? Trying to claim that these tame political maneuvers are equivalent to the piles of stacked...
You're still catastrophising. "Intentional destruction" is changing definitions in a legal document?
Trying to claim that these tame political maneuvers are equivalent to the piles of stacked corpses that we saw in WW2 is ludicrous and transparently manipulative.
But neither of us are going to be convinced by the other, I think. This is going in circles.
I strongly recommend that you read up a bit more on how genocide is actually defined, this wiki article is a great starting point. You've fallen for some strong propaganda if you believe it is...
I strongly recommend that you read up a bit more on how genocide is actually defined, this wiki article is a great starting point. You've fallen for some strong propaganda if you believe it is solely defined by mass killings.
Fine. I'll bite, what part of the above mentioned bad actors don't fall under the "intolerant" definition? And what kinds of social norms are being broken? Because I find rewarding monetarily...
Fine. I'll bite, what part of the above mentioned bad actors don't fall under the "intolerant" definition? And what kinds of social norms are being broken? Because I find rewarding monetarily grifters, bad actors, misogynists, and Nazi sympathizers pretty outside the social norm.
"All or nothing thinking" is literally a cognitive distortion, though. It is a narrow-minded way of looking at the world. Continually using "all or nothing" thought processes promotes inflexible...
"All or nothing thinking" is literally a cognitive distortion, though. It is a narrow-minded way of looking at the world. Continually using "all or nothing" thought processes promotes inflexible thinking and therefore intolerance.
When it comes to nazis and people who outright want to get rid of a whole bunch of people simply cause they exist... I'm completely fine with all or nothing. Fuck them. And don't tell me I'm one...
When it comes to nazis and people who outright want to get rid of a whole bunch of people simply cause they exist... I'm completely fine with all or nothing. Fuck them. And don't tell me I'm one of the ones who want to get rid of a whole bunch of people simply cause they exist. I want to get rid of a whole bunch of people who want to do harm to a group of people who are doing no harm to anyone.
+1 for this! Some Nitter instances provide RSS feeds, and I use this heavily as a way of staying up to date with certain accounts without ever having to touch the platform itself. (The one I use...
+1 for this! Some Nitter instances provide RSS feeds, and I use this heavily as a way of staying up to date with certain accounts without ever having to touch the platform itself.
(The one I use with RSS feeds is tweet.lambda.dance, but there might be a better one out there.)
Please don't copy-paste entire articles into a comment like this. That's the kind of thing that can get the site in trouble for copyright infringement.
It seems Tildes has become a redditors echo chamber anything against far-right. Should Twitter selects and decides which accounts are far-right or far-left and shadow ban them?.
It seems Tildes has become a redditors echo chamber anything against far-right. Should Twitter selects and decides which accounts are far-right or far-left and shadow ban them?.
Even more reason not to use the platform, they're a nazi bar.
via IamRageSparkle on (I know, the irony) twitter.
"you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
This is probabaly the best advice ever on these people. The paradox of tolerance on full display.
I've seen takes on that idea that are something like this:
"The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard, but as a social contract. If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it."
I love this and I'm shamelessly stealing it.
Not sure where it's from, a family member shared it and the image also said "Inspired by 'tolerance is not a moral precept' by Yonatan Zunger". Probably worth giving Zunger a look.
Edit: After 5min of research, he appears to be an engineer who's been at Google, Twitter, and Microsoft. Has written on tech ethics and such and it sounds like (again, after 5min) he's got fairly reasonable views.
I'm assuming that the original long post that ends with this statement is essentially a pro-Nazi person who is claiming that Nazis have "reasonable arguments" and I guess sarcastically saying that people think Nazis are "terrible, awful people" because people secretly think Nazi's arguments are "reasonable." Now maybe I'm confused, but it seems like for some reason people are actually going forward with his manipulative statement? Or maybe his blatantly passive-aggressive manipulation is so clearly nonsensical most people would rather ignore or mock him than address him. I do understand, a tolerant person can rather simply explain why Nazi beliefs are bad: Nazis choose to selectively disrespect and harm human life. I feel like the author played a trap to distract from the light we could shine on his long post: what are the Nazis saying that is reasonable?
We can simply say "I am not tolerating intolerance" and ignore this person. It is understandable to do so; it is frustrating to argue with someone who is so conniving and manipulative that they can persuade people to become intolerant. Not tolerating intolerance can mean ignoring it, that is certainly a way to not tolerate it. I think ignoring intolerance allows for vulnerable people, who are more easily manipulated, to be able to get drawn in by intolerant people, like Nazis. That is why I think it is important not to just ignore the intolerant, but to shine a light on them. Ask them to explain their beliefs.
I think we may fear this, because maybe some think "what if they're right, and their arguments are reasonable," but in all honesty, I doubt it. I doubt many people truly believe that certain groups of people are inferior to others. I believe we can be brave and say "we hear your beliefs and we don't accept your beliefs." We do not have to tolerate intolerance, and we can acknowledge that intolerance exists and state that we won't stand for it.
I think you're confused, and should look at sealioning and JAQing off. Part of the story highlights this a bit,
The quote is basically saying, "nip it in the bud", not "Nazis have reasonable arguments"
Yup the quote you made is a reasonable arguement for a regular person. Not so much for hatemongers though.
Yeah, maybe I am confused. I don't understand the giant quote post's point. It literally says Nazis have reasonable arguments? And I disagree with that; I don't think Nazi ideology is reasonable.
Basically it says, a guy (person 1) is sitting in a bar. A guy comes in, unbeknownst to the first person, wearing Nazi memorabilia. The bartender immediately tells him to get out, and the Nazi says, "I'm a paying customer, not doing anything just sitting around" (this is what the story implies is the reasonable point, that for most people it's okay to sit at a bar as a paying customer. From person 1's perspective, this is reasonable because he doesn't know that the Nazi is a Nazi. The bartender does, so he knows that the Nazi isn't a reasonable person, and needs to immediately remove him from the bar.)
The quote is basically saying that some Nazis like to pretend that they're reasonable, polite people who are "just asking questions", but once you start entertaining them and letting them in your space, more of them will show up. So it's better to ban and kick Nazis out the moment they show up. Does that make sense?
Oh yeah, I understand that a business does not need to serve people with hateful values. I understand hateful people can appear polite. If hateful people choose to wear symbols of hatred, others can clearly see that those people believe in advocating for hatred and no one is obligated to interact with hateful people.
I think I was thinking in a more abstract sense, like pointing out and shutting down intolerant behavior on the Internet or in conversation.
The principle applies on the Internet too. "Free speech" platforms tend to trend toward hate speech and incivility.
Why? Because:
Voat was a good example of this. It was an earlier Reddit alternative that gained some popularity during a past Reddit scandal. But as a "free speech" platform, it had little in the way of moderation. Banned hate subreddits would often move to Voat, and so that's what the platform became known for - all the reprehensible shit that wasn't allowed on Reddit.
Effective moderation and rules are critical to nip this in the bud. If bigots take a foothold, they push out everybody else and turn the platform into a platform for bigots.
You can't always tell if somebody is a Nazi or has sympathetic views, but if they're bigoted in one way, they're probably bigoted in others. Bigoted behaviour should be made unwelcome so that bigots are either forced to change their behaviour, or leave.
To add a personal anecdote:
One day, an old high school friend of mine joined an established circle of friends that I'd been hanging out with for years. Only, my old friend from high school had changed.
As we sat down for dinner the pub, he was all to eager to tell me that Adolf Hitler was actually a misunderstood good guy who was trying to protect the German national identity by evicting the Jews. The death camps were apparently built by the Soviets to frame Hitler for genocide.
After dinner, I looked through his Facebook page for the first time in a decade and it was full of racist dog whistles, primarily against the Jews.
I didn't want anything to do with this old friend, but my friend circle thought differently. He was "just asking honest questions", and they didn't see anything wrong with that.
So I ditched them all and stopped hanging out with any of them. A friend of a Nazi is a Nazi as far as I'm concerned.
I am so confused. One of us completely misread the copypasta I think.
I was under the impression the bar story was about not tolerating a single nazi because as soon as you do, they multiply. By the time you realize your bar is full of nazis, it's too late.
The "reasonable" argument in the story was that the second person sat down, tried to order a drink, and (edit) was immediately told to leave. They then "reasonably" claimed "hey I'm not doing anything".
...The reason the "reasonable" argument wasn't tolerated was because the person was wearing Nazi regalia, and was thus the first attempt at gaining a nazi foothold in the bar.
Not quite. The point is the Nazi never has a chance to say anything before being ejected
Then the justification is offered that he would initially come across as reasonable, bring friends, and before you knew it it's a Nazi bar and you can't kick them out.
The implication is that the bartender had seen this happen before. It's more a parable of why hate speech needs to be stopped before it can even happen than a specific series of events that happened in one place, but this has played out in many places.
EDIT: I never saw the source thread but checked it. It apparently happened, but my point is the same.
Ah, good point, I missed that detail.
Yeah, I think I misunderstood the overall point by reading too far into certain aspects of the story. So I was quite confused, hah. I appreciate people taking the time to explain. I missed the forest for the trees.
I agree that wearing Nazi regalia is a sign that a person is likely going to be antagonistic. "I'm not doing anything," is not the whole truth when someone is wearing Nazi regalia. They choose to wear symbols of intolerance; I'm not sure why they act confused when people do not want to associate with them.
It's just an act to use sneaky "reasonableness" to get that first foothold. Anyone foolish enough to let it slide has already lost. Thus the whole reason for giving it zero tolerance.
All-or-nothing mentality is not healthy.
WaPo is far from an impartial reporter, and the word "far-right" has been overused so badly it really has no meaning any more.
Discarding the "Twitter bad" news they've been pushing consistently for a long time, this new monetization program for creators on Twitter is an interesting change to existing social media paradigms and I'll be paying attention to see how it turns out for them.
What? Did you read the actual article? The creators they mentioned ARE far right creators, I don't see how you can define them as anything else.
And All -or-nothing mentality when it pertains to Nazis should be the default. As the old saying goes, if you have a dinner table with 10 people and a Nazi, you have a dinner table with 11 Nazis.
it seems like you're making a personalized statement - that you don't understand what "far-right" means anymore, due to overuse - but phrasing it as a generalized, universal truth.
speak for yourself - I'm pretty confident I still understand the meaning of "far-right", despite its increased coverage in news stories.
The paradox of tolerance demands that we not tolerate intolerance in the least in order to have a tolerant society.
I don't believe that is what that means. That's an extremist take.
Obviously there's a paradox of tolerance and not tolerating intolerance is a proper course of action in some cases, but to say "not tolerate intolerance in the least" is extremist because humans aren't perfect and aren't always going to be able to rationally act or perceive things perfectly down to the "least" scale of tiny details, where things can be misidentified as intolerance, and those who take this mindset end up becoming more intolerant unjustly than those they perceived to have been intolerant.
I view a lot of human behavior similar to how humans act with revenge. In the case of revenge it is like a bloodthirst, where it's justifiable to want harm done to someone who killed someone else. It's OK to make prison rape jokes because that person is a murderer...but then people cannot simply just be satisfied with this, it continues to expand because there's something satisfying in revenge and people want that satisfaction and will look for ways to justify getting it, so now it's not just murderers, it's pedophiles, and it's rapists, and at one point it was drug dealers who are ruining our children etc., and many more people who have committed other types of crimes, all the way down to the point where some people don't care what happens in prisons or how horrible the conditions are etc. because anyone in prison, regardless of why, isn't deserving of anything better and it brings about satisfaction to think that people are getting punished for wrongdoings.
In the case of having a tolerant society, saying that the paradox of tolerance demands intolerance even the perceived lowest forms of intolerance is creating a satisfaction in the mind of the idea that you can eradicate intolerance as long as you maintain hyper vigilance. Not to mention it becomes a way to practice intolerance in an acceptable way, much like punishment/revenge is an acceptable way to practice violence because your subjects are somehow deserving of it.
Again, I do think there's situations where being intolerant of intolerance is beneficial to society, and people coming together and recognizing the more dangerous of those behaviors to not accept is worthwhile, but to blindly embolden people to take intolerance to its most extremes because it's for a good cause, well that's just going to end badly.
This is a lot of perceived nuances and hedging about the fallibility of the human condition being thrown in the defense of people like:
Naw, these people have made their beds. They're not wayward souls making an oopsie or ill-thought post somewhere. These are people committed to their thoroughly detestable political projects and it's perfectly fine to say: No, I don't think rewarding these people in our society is good. We shouldn't accept their ilk in our spaces and companies that give them platforms and support are bad.
That was a statement I made in my other comment. Apparently I needed it add it to both comments... I assumed from context it was obviously more of a general comment but sometimes it needs to be specified more clearly for people with pitchforks out.
But that's the overall context of this thread. I guess we're in a mismatch of what the expectations and scope this discussion should be in. Perhaps that is my fault.
I'm about to be vastly reductionist here but the gist is:
Twitter rewards bad actors
User up above says we should be intolerant of them and cites "paradox of intolerance" a pretty common trope online nowadays.
You disagree with it calling it extreme and discuss at length how tolerance should be extended in a nuanced fashion to prevent extremist thinking.
That's all fine and good, but misses the point a little I think. What you've saying applies much more coherently to judgement of most people. But that's now what's happening here. We're judging, harshly, people whose livelihood is making the world more hateful.
I agree that the overall context of the thread is about these particular twitter influencers, but I believe the scope changed with the comment I was replying to and I simply went further with that broadening of scope rather than going back to the specifics of how it ties into the subjects that prompted the topic being posted.
Specifically what they said was "not tolerate intolerance in the least" which my interpretation of that was, any intolerance no matter how little was not to be tolerated, which goes beyond the bounds of what the subject of the topic is which was describing people who might be more on the extreme side of intolerance (the far right twitter influencers), thus expanding the scope beyond the most extreme people. The issue I have is that words make it sound simple, black and white, there are things that are intolerant, and things that aren't, and it's simple to not tolerate the intolerant, but in reality the actual behaviors we're attempting to describe beyond the obvious ones become harder to define as simply "intolerant", so while it might work for things that aren't "the least", it generally doesn't work for things that would fall a lot closer to "the least".
I don't think it's your fault, but I thought that comment was expanding the scope of the discussion to be more about how to treat and view intolerance more broadly than what specifically applied to these far right twitter influencers. and in several comments I feel that was also a theme, the art of how to treat intolerance was more the focus, rather than how to treat specifically these twitter influencers.
I think this one of those "you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people." accounts
Not sure if I understood you properly, but my point is that even in that mindset, it only works with some things, the more obvious things. It's a lot easier to ascertain the goal of someone wearing a swastika or a white robe and hat etc., but when you start examining the less obvious cases, determining what goal someone has is not as clear.
That's what prompted my comment, was someone saying "in the least" as though they were talking about intolerance in the lowest forms, but at that point even if you correctly identify something as being intolerant, which isn't always that straightforward, how do you know what someone's goal is? For example, my comment is refuting the idea that you should be able to blindly be intolerant of others perceived intolerance and that could be perceived as something you should be intolerant of because I'm undermining the goal of "ignoring reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people". My goal isn't to be a terrible awful person, or make things worse for anyone, but if you view that perspective to be what makes society better and I'm antagonistic to that, you might think anything short of hanging me out to dry is tolerating my antagonism to that notion.
I view the underlying behaviors there to be similar to how people behave when it comes to punishment and revenge, and I state this to ground it in something that is more visceral but also more obvious. It's not hard to look around and see people stating nasty things and garnering some support because the subjects of their nastiness are perceived to be deserving. The nasty behavior is justified. We can see that we have to strike a balance in the justice system, where we can say it's unjust to confine someone for the rest of their lives, but then we can justify it because they're a danger to society. Confining someone who is dangerous for the safety of everyone else is sensible, even if taking away others ability to survive on their own is inherently problematic. It's a paradox as well. Killing someone is bad, unless it's in self defense, then it's justified. These are paradoxes we've already gotten past. IMO it's more obvious what happens when you apply that same extremist take to this because we've already seen elements of it. We can handle the paradox adequately as long as we don't go to extremes with it. The extremes are when you justify prison rape, or put kill bounties on drug dealers or other criminals as what was happening in the Phillipines, or most things that happen outside judicial systems (and even judicial systems have their own problems). It
So I'm fine with the paradox of violence in the case of self defense or restraining someone who is a danger to others or things like that, just as I can be fine with the paradox of intolerance and being intolerant of those when you can reasonably ascertain the goals of someone to be doing something that is going to result in awful things. I just think highlighting the flaws of human behavior and how people get carried away because it's easy to begin justifying awful things for the perceived right reasons makes for bad people. To some extent, it's the nature of how the intolerant people come about, they feel justified to being intolerant because their targets of intolerance are deserving.
Also just to be clear, I'm more of a generalist. I don't care about far right twitter influencers nor is any of what I said above specifically to defend them. To what extent their goals are obvious, I don't know, I don't use Twitter or follow them so maybe some are obvious and being intolerant of them is fine, again my argument here isn't specifically about these people, its the general idea being promoted that I'm targeting.
It's extreme because of the particular wording that I mentioned, which is "not tolerate intolerance in the least", which I interpreted that as, anything that could be perceived as intolerance even in the slightest should not be tolerated.
Just generally citing things as intolerant but not trying to dive into what things could be considered intolerant makes it sound easy, black and white, there are behaviors and thoughts that are intolerant, and ones that aren't, and we can just easily identify the intolerant ones and all the rest go untouched, but in reality it doesn't work like that. Is there much of anything to do with humans or human behavior that once you go beyond the extremes there is a easily identifiable line in the sand? It might have been once upon a time people thought that even within biology would be a great example of this, there's an easily identifiable line, man and woman, XY and XX chromosomes and nothing else right? But then we learn that isn't true, and there's other things that happen biologically that make what some might have thought to have been a black and white thing into something that's not, and biology is probably a little more straightforward than linguistics or psychology/sociology where it's even more grey areas. Being able to ascertain meaning from what someone says can be harder than digging into their genetics. So the further you get from extremes, it's a lot harder for people to rationally and accurately identify intolerance and rationally and accurately scale their tolerance for that behavior, especially if you embolden people to seek out even the least intolerance because its the righteous path.
Then I can only simply reiterate the other remarks in my comments after further clarifying the above.
I wanted to let you know that your additional comments in this topic and the patience with which you've made them has been very valuable. It really helps strengthen your original point and its call for nuance.
I think it was easy to see "extremist" in your original comment, in a thread already about extremism, and jump to some conclusions that weren't at all what you intended. Assuming I'm reading you correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) you're trying to bring voice to the idea that there is a very large gradient of behavior that could potentially fall close to the hypothetical line of "intolerance", and that interpretations in that area can easily happen due to misunderstandings, miscommunications, and misalignment of experiences. As such, being slightly more delicate about approaching intolerance, especially in gray area cases, is a warranted and better response than meeting it with rigid inflexibility.
I see what you're advocating for as basically an extension of the principle of charity. Intolerating intolerance is easy in obvious and extreme cases, but we'll run into false positives if we don't meet some of the others with a gentler approach first.
I would agree with this, but the definition of "intolerant" has also been changing rapidly these days. Who knows where it will be next year?
The problem with this paradox is that it allows people to break social norms while still holding a sense of moral righteousness. This has historically been a very bad combination and I predict it will play out the same ways again.
If you honestly think our current "speech is violence" and "silence is violence" attitudes have been consistent through the last 10, even 5 years of cultural values then I'm not sure what to say.
Thanks for your energy with trying to pin down what the user is trying to say, but I genuinely believe that the user is utilizing some form of Sealioning and that it'll be easier to report and move on.
Hey at least you're getting replies. I appreciate your energy and am grateful that at least it feels like the general sentiment is that Nazi sympathizers are bad.
I'm not trying to restart the discussion, but I wanted to add one thing:
I'm making genuine comments here. This is not sealion-ing or something. As a conservative person I'm here walking on eggshells trying to advocate for my position in a way that won't immediately be dismissed or shouted out.
I'm still standing in the same place politically as I was 8 years ago as a liberal college kid. Suddenly positions like free speech are "far right" and the shift has not gone unnoticed. I'm going to keep speaking up because the rhetoric I keep hearing from people around me is getting more and more inflammatory all the time. I feel like I'm pouring shotglasses of water on a structure fire.
People are allowed to disagree. Disagreement is not violence. If the first response to any conflict is to dismiss it or condemn it, then there's no actual conversation being had and it's just a shouting match. And the winner of that isn't who's right, it's just who has the most goons in the room with them.
It's not "disagreement" when you (in a general sense, not you specifically) hold beliefs that dehumanize others.
That's the line. And it's pretty easy to identify.
"Direct call for genocide"
Quote from the article you're linking:
"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has undertaken an effort across several departments to establish a legal definition of sex under title IX"
If this were actual genocide then yes, I would absolutely stand in opposition to that with every other reasonable person. But this isn't genocide, it's not even a physical act. It's changing definitions in a legal document.
You said I'm defending aggressors. Who struck whom? These are words on a computer screen. Mean words, sure, but that makes them "violence" the same way that thoughts and prayers are "help." Which is to say, not at all.
You're still catastrophising. "Intentional destruction" is changing definitions in a legal document?
Trying to claim that these tame political maneuvers are equivalent to the piles of stacked corpses that we saw in WW2 is ludicrous and transparently manipulative.
But neither of us are going to be convinced by the other, I think. This is going in circles.
I strongly recommend that you read up a bit more on how genocide is actually defined, this wiki article is a great starting point. You've fallen for some strong propaganda if you believe it is solely defined by mass killings.
Fine. I'll bite, what part of the above mentioned bad actors don't fall under the "intolerant" definition? And what kinds of social norms are being broken? Because I find rewarding monetarily grifters, bad actors, misogynists, and Nazi sympathizers pretty outside the social norm.
"all or nothing mentality is not healthy" is an all or nothing approach to health.
"All or nothing thinking" is literally a cognitive distortion, though. It is a narrow-minded way of looking at the world. Continually using "all or nothing" thought processes promotes inflexible thinking and therefore intolerance.
When it comes to nazis and people who outright want to get rid of a whole bunch of people simply cause they exist... I'm completely fine with all or nothing. Fuck them. And don't tell me I'm one of the ones who want to get rid of a whole bunch of people simply cause they exist. I want to get rid of a whole bunch of people who want to do harm to a group of people who are doing no harm to anyone.
+1 for this! Some Nitter instances provide RSS feeds, and I use this heavily as a way of staying up to date with certain accounts without ever having to touch the platform itself.
(The one I use with RSS feeds is tweet.lambda.dance, but there might be a better one out there.)
I do not want to create an account on wp. Can someone paste the text of the article?
archive
Appreciate it. I never considered archive for this sort of thing on my phone. Much obliged.
It's not a good idea to copy-paste whole articles into Tildes, as Deimos himself said recently:
Fair enough.
It seems Tildes has become a redditors echo chamber anything against far-right. Should Twitter selects and decides which accounts are far-right or far-left and shadow ban them?.
They should 100% ban accounts posting hateful content.
Absolutely agree with both spectrums.