I feel you— but also what does this declaration of hate garner us? Is it anything beyond the base tribalistic fervor: “we are strong fear us”. It makes sense if we were in person— but I fear this is how we create silos.
If there are conservatives here, and we continually assault them directly then perhaps they’ll leave— and while personally I may feel that would make the discourse more favorable, they do not disappear; they leave and find a more homogeneous pasture. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves lest we contribute to make debate a toxic no man’s land.
I generally want good things for all people. However, modern conservatives in my neck of the woods have grown increasingly vile over the course of my lifetime. I like the idea that they might feel isolated because the ideas they champion are backward and negative. And because they seemingly delight in causing harm to others, especially groups who have less power.
The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don’t really work in reality. We don’t tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that “the intolerant” is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.
For a less-political example, let’s imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they’re showing intolerance towards linux.
But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don’t use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they’re inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there’s no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like “hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them.” That may sound idealistic, but I think that’s a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
I appreciate the detailed comment and example scenario, but I don’t agree with the reasoning or the conclusion.
For a less-political example, let’s imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux.
Lol. Yes, hypothetically.
I don’t think this non-political example works as an analogy, because: 1. there isn’t a moral component to it (or not as much of a moral imperative), 2. the percentage of the populace that hates Linux doesn’t have much of an impact on the functioning of society, and 3. the target of the hate here isn’t a person or class of people that, you know, has the right to exist.
The reason I’m drawing that line is because the whole idea behind being intolerant of intolerance is because doing the opposite allows the intolerance to spread unchecked and fuck up society, having a very real negative impact on the targeted people. (And not, like, an OS.)
Part of the problem is that “the intolerant” is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other.
This is the difference between the political and non-political examples. In the Nazi vs. anti-Nazi example, one of those groups is absolutely morally right and therefore we should do everything we can to stamp out the intolerance. In the Linux vs. anti-Linux example, ehh, it is closer to a matter of opinion—or at least a lower-impact moral question.
It’s about cost-benefit, right? Like, what’s the cost to society if Nazi propaganda goes unchecked? Lives lost, people deported, families broken, etc. Seems pretty important then to pay the “cost” of not tolerating Nazis. But what’s the cost to society of anti-Linux propaganda goes unchecked? Costlier computers? More inefficient companies due to vendor lock-in and security issues? Maybe more state surveillance? It’s not good, but it’s nowhere near the same level as with the Nazi thing.
The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there’s no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
The culty bubble is going to exist regardless. The question is whether we let it infect everything else it touches.
That may sound idealistic, but I think that’s a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
It only dies in open ones if you shoot it down at every opportunity. But if you engage with it and allow the intolerant to do their “I’m just asking questions” sealioning, then it just metastasizes.
I feel you— but also what does this declaration of hate garner us? Is it anything beyond the base tribalistic fervor: “we are strong fear us”. It makes sense if we were in person— but I fear this is how we create silos.
If there are conservatives here, and we continually assault them directly then perhaps they’ll leave— and while personally I may feel that would make the discourse more favorable, they do not disappear; they leave and find a more homogeneous pasture. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves lest we contribute to make debate a toxic no man’s land.
I generally want good things for all people. However, modern conservatives in my neck of the woods have grown increasingly vile over the course of my lifetime. I like the idea that they might feel isolated because the ideas they champion are backward and negative. And because they seemingly delight in causing harm to others, especially groups who have less power.
Don’t tolerate those who promote intolerance.
The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don’t really work in reality. We don’t tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that “the intolerant” is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.
For a less-political example, let’s imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they’re showing intolerance towards linux.
But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don’t use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they’re inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there’s no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like “hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them.” That may sound idealistic, but I think that’s a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
I appreciate the detailed comment and example scenario, but I don’t agree with the reasoning or the conclusion.
Lol. Yes, hypothetically.
I don’t think this non-political example works as an analogy, because: 1. there isn’t a moral component to it (or not as much of a moral imperative), 2. the percentage of the populace that hates Linux doesn’t have much of an impact on the functioning of society, and 3. the target of the hate here isn’t a person or class of people that, you know, has the right to exist.
The reason I’m drawing that line is because the whole idea behind being intolerant of intolerance is because doing the opposite allows the intolerance to spread unchecked and fuck up society, having a very real negative impact on the targeted people. (And not, like, an OS.)
This is the difference between the political and non-political examples. In the Nazi vs. anti-Nazi example, one of those groups is absolutely morally right and therefore we should do everything we can to stamp out the intolerance. In the Linux vs. anti-Linux example, ehh, it is closer to a matter of opinion—or at least a lower-impact moral question.
It’s about cost-benefit, right? Like, what’s the cost to society if Nazi propaganda goes unchecked? Lives lost, people deported, families broken, etc. Seems pretty important then to pay the “cost” of not tolerating Nazis. But what’s the cost to society of anti-Linux propaganda goes unchecked? Costlier computers? More inefficient companies due to vendor lock-in and security issues? Maybe more state surveillance? It’s not good, but it’s nowhere near the same level as with the Nazi thing.
The culty bubble is going to exist regardless. The question is whether we let it infect everything else it touches.
It only dies in open ones if you shoot it down at every opportunity. But if you engage with it and allow the intolerant to do their “I’m just asking questions” sealioning, then it just metastasizes.