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 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.