"The right thing". Tolerance means recognizing that people have different world views than your own.
Sometimes the people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with. The melodrama over Thiel's political opinions is pointless. If you demand Thiel steps down, are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently?
Personally I lean liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with all the theatrics I've seen in this election from the left. The Trump phenomenon arguably occurred because half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington in the form of donald trump. Maybe we should all get to understand our neighbors instead of doubling down on us-vs-them tribalism.
Tolerance means you aren't jailing people with different views than your own. Tolerance means you aren't out beating people up for having different views. Tolerance isn't about putting on a happy face and doing business with someone whose views you find odious.
If people are no longer free to use words or social stigma to advance their views and opinion, because "tolerance," then what do we have left?
I think most people would equate "tolerance" with "non-antagonizing" in the general case. It's hard to claim that actively antagonizing & stigmatizing somebody for their beliefs (not just reasonably arguing against the beliefs themselves) counts as tolerant of others' beliefs.
It exactly means that no matter how subjectively and personally odious somebody's beliefs are to you, you can still respect their personhood, and evaluate any associated business & products at face value.
"Tolerance" does not mean enforcement for or against selected beliefs. Waging a stigmatizing crusade against a belief is enforcement.
The moment you think you can deem and enforce absolute right & wrong upon others, you open yourself up to it happening to you without defense. That is not the path of liberty.
Of course I get to deem and enforce what I think is right and wrong, using tools like words and association.
What on earth kind of law do you want to set up where I can't preferentially trade with people whose opinions I like, or preferentially not trade with people whose opinions I don't?
Again, tolerance means I don't want to imprison or kill people with distasteful opinions; it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions.
People can be bigots, they can be jerks. Go nuts, folks, be bigots or jerks, I don't care. But I'm not going to trade with bigots or jerks, I'm not going to hire them, and I'm sure as hell not going to say "hey, you're a bigot and a jerk but tolerance so let's have a beer".
Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision. If they really wanna be my friend or business partner, they can change their beliefs.
> Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision.
That is pretty much the definition of not tolerating a person, to remove a person from your life, not tolerating having their existence in your sphere. If it's mostly based on their beliefs, then it's an example of not tolerating that belief.
You're perfectly fine to do that, as people do, but then you can't claim that you're tolerant of others' beliefs just because you happen not to be killing or imprisoning them.
> it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions.
Tolerance does NOT mean liking them! I keep hearing false dichotomy over and over. To be decent and civil to a person, to tolerate their beliefs existing around you, does not require condoning them. It's simply being a decent human being and not being an overprovoked reactionary, intolerantly policing all others around themselves, determining what others are not allowed to be like.
There are beliefs that it is fair to reasonably argue with and then there are statements that defy common decency. At some point offensive statements should be shunned, not engaged with.
Why the implicit equation of "words" with "shouting at people that they're bad"? (Or at least, that's how I'm reading your comment based on the context.)
The alternative is actual argument rather than punishment, something overgard in no way ruled out.
...which unfortunately may not be a great tool given the current situation. I think we are at the point where playing nice may no longer be a serious option.
But that doesn't mean we should just, lke, punish all the bad people because they're bad people. That still isn't helpful. It just feels good, it doesn't necessarily accomplish anything.
Still. We're in a situation now where argument is unlikely to get us anywhere -- but in better times, that's the ideal, not using words to punish people.
Also, there is the fact that Trump isn't Pinochet. At this stage, he's not even Bill Clinton (pushed the party hard to the right, locked up hundreds of thousands of poor black people to court skittish suburbanites). He'll get there but he's a pure virgin soul compared to pretty much any modern President besides Carter.
> locked up hundreds of thousands of poor black people to court skittish suburbanites
That's an utterly meaningless comparison. Bill Clinton was a governor with terrible policies concerning minorities [1], while Donald Trump was a real estate mogul with terrible policies concerning minorities. The fact that their different leadership positions meant that Trump could harm a statistically fewer number of people means exactly nothing.
"Didn't lock up any black people" isn't exactly an achievement for someone who hasn't served in government.
[1]: I agree with you that Bill Clinton deserves to be held completely accountable for his actions as Arkansas governor.
Letting people get away with harmful practices is a bad idea. Extending that from theft to politics is a very reasonable thing to do.
People prentend that politics is a purely abstract thing, but consider. Bush is directly responsible for well over 500,000 deaths. The blood of his victims is directly on the hands of everyone that voted for the idiot. Trump might not be as bad or he might start WWIII.
Tolerance is compassion. It means seeking the deeper truth beneath the words and actions, to understand the fundamental reasons.
It's true that few of us have the time and energy to dig through all the bullshit and achieve understanding of everyone we find abhorrent.
But where we are able to do so, we usually learn some important things about others and about ourselves - mostly, that when it comes down to it, we all just want to feel safe and loved.
True compassion is hard, but unless we can offer it to others, we can't expect it to be offered back to us.
This is based on the assumption that understanding someone is enough to accept them. I disagree, cannibalism is just one example of things people do where understanding and accepting are very different.
PS: Some people really don't care about safety others don't care about love.
Of course there are extremes. The Gaussian distribution is a natural phenomenon. But this discussion is about the ~50% of voters who supported Trump, because rightly or wrongly, they believe his leadership will provide them with a safer and more prosperous future than those of the alternative candidate.
You can disagree with their decision whilst still empathising with their reasons. Indeed you must, if you're ever going to persuade anyone to change their position.
Though you're poisoning the discussion by invoking cannibalism, it's easy to see that in primitive societies where it was accepted, it was due to a need for safety (from hunger) and love (from participating a communal ritual). Of course we find it abhorrent now, I certainly do. But I can understand why it would have been acceptable to people in a time and place where there seemed no alternative.
Equally, we would all hope and expect that where others find our opinions and actions abhorrent (and in a huge and diverse world, someone always will), that they will seek understanding before abusing or marginalising us.
> PS: Some people really don't care about safety others don't care about love.
When I've actually dug deeply into that question, I've never found it to be true. The people who, on the surface, seem not to care about being loved, actually turn out to be the ones who crave it the most. Just look into the life story of any psychopath or tyrant, and you'll inevitably find stories of abuse and/or emotional neglect in childhood.
Cannibalism is actually really dangerous due to disease, so it's a negative in terms of safety.
In terms of trump voters, I don't care about their reasons. And I am not trying to convince them. They made the world significantly less safe, putting literally billions of people at risk. That's just not cool, still as a well off person I don't need to care it's probably not going to get me killed.
As to love, some people flat out can't feel pain. Some, have more than one set of DNA. That's just 2 examples, but humans have a lot more variety than most people think about. Being an outlier and being famous are really separate things.
Humanity has many systems of tricking people to do various things harming their own self interest, but saying what people believe has any inherent value is a huge mistake. Trump getting elected is going to kill many (though hopefully a small percentage) of his supporters, but many of them don't see a problem with this.
Trying to be a hero running into a hail of bullets it stupid. But, hundreds of millions of young men have repeatedly done so. Watching a war movie most people cheer such stupidity on as a good thing continuing this cycle.
PS: Many people hate this but even a single counter example absolutely disproves what you say. Yet, convicting people to believe lies has long had value to a great many people, so pointing this out is generally a waste of time. People even react negatively to the truth note all the down votes for polite on topic responses.
Yes, because it's definitely always only the other people's perceptions and judgments that are flawed, never one's own. Because history shows that's always the way the most intelligent and wise people think.
Your first two sentences are just vague accusations with no real substance. Sure, some trump supporters are violent bullies. Some clinton supporters are violent bullies too. I've seen both occur this election.
There's a difference between "advancing your views" and "demanding someone get fired because they disagree with your views". See? If you want to call Thiel a dickhead for his support, feel free, you even have my agreement. But this is the CLASSIC go-to-move of overzealous social justice creeps, to demand banishment of the person for thought-crimes.
>>If people are no longer free to use words or social stigma to advance their views and opinion, because "tolerance," then what do we have left?
I agree with you. But we cannot disregard the dishonest behaviour performed by most leftists/liberals over the years. The leftists/liberals hurl so much social stigma against the republicans/Christianity but they dishonestly and criminally keep mum about e.g. Islam. Sam Harris and Bill Maher have pointed this out beautifully at [1] and [2].
The leftists have never allowed anyone to socially stigmatize Muslims about their faith in the very vicious, barbaric and most importantly "the most intolerant" ideology of Islam. So now this has came around them.
Mainstream left/liberal camp is completely dishonest about its take on the issue of intolerance of Islam.
Sadly but not surprisingly people like Trump will succeed to exploit such thing.
The saner people in the left should reflect on this dishonest behaviour of the mainstream/vocal leftists and must do something about it, else the intolerance will just grow.
>>To claim that Islam is somehow innately "vicious" or "barbaric" is just insulting.
First a question: Insulting to whom?
If you think it is insulting to Muslims, then I disagree. It may be offensive to some Muslims. Will criticizing Nazism be considered as insulting (to Germans)?
The 'brick through the window' analogy is one of the most apt I've heard so far given the increasingly violent tendency of 'protesters' in this country.
The guys who wrote the universal declaration of human rights seem to disagree with you.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
"All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
Yeah I'm not saying people with abhorrent opinions don't deserve human rights. That doesn't mean tolerance is all about being cool with your hypothetical Nazi neighbor. I'm pretty sure whoever came up with that declaration would be with me on the part where we aren't cool w/ Nazis.
Tolerance would still mean that if Nazi neighbor needs help with his lawnmower, that you don't have a problem giving him a hand.
Don't throw away people's humanity because of one aspect you don't like about them. Even if they're your enemy. Seriously, differences are being treated like kindergarten cooties here. You don't catch Naziism by being civil to your neighbor, and we need civility overall.
But here's a problem: Everybody is labeling everybody else as effectively Nazis for any minor or major difference, thus justifying all civility being withdrawn.
No and never. Tolerance means I don't shoot him for being a Nazi, even if I would like to. I can earnestly hope his lawnmower takes off a hand and that his cholesterol levels are none too good, and I remain tolerant of him. Toleration has nothing to do with being nice, it has to do with a recognition of legal status and human rights. Fuck your hypothetical Nazi and fuck his lawnmower.
What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true.
If you replace "Nazi" with another word starting with N, you sound like a person from not too long ago talking about legal status and human rights as well. This has nothing to do with Nazis, it's a question of principle. Principles don't special case particular targets, they either stand or not. Substituting a different target certainly makes you sound like those you're railing against in the first place. Nazis are just an easy target.
> What you describe is functionally the tacit endorsement of abhorrent views. Every moment of every day is political; act like it or don't, but you can't change that it is true.
This is the root of the polarization that is tearing everything apart. The only life you'd be happy to live is one where you're only surrounded by those who are not "politically" divergent from you? Politicizing everything puts you at a fundamentalist war with everything.
This is demonstrably anti-freedom, and intolerance of the existence of differences. Sure, you can promote destroying differences that you don't like (I was going to say "political differences", but that's moot according to your outlook of all differences being political), but you're really speaking against fundamental tenets of western society so it becomes functionally moot.
The flip was equating it to perpetrating a genocidal ideology, with the same argument as used in lashing out against its perpetrators, because that's exactly the same stuff that's going through a genocidal maniac's head (or at least coming out of their mouths). But all my points stand.
It's too easy to label somebody a Nazi (or whatever label enables you), eliminate all civility and humanity from them, wish them nothing but death, and consider yourself righteous and tolerant for it.
It is better to err on the side of treating bad people with more respect than they deserve, than to err on the side of treating decent people with more hate than they deserve. Because your judgment of how bad or decent they are is at the very best based on incomplete information in the first place. Erring on the side of hate directly makes the world a worse place, and erring on the side of respect makes the world a more civil place.
The argument of "they're out to eradicate me and people like me" works better against Nazis because they're documented to have been doing that at scale. It doesn't work so well against people who've traditionally been on the receiving side of that sort of thing.
It's all fun and games to treat people with respect if you have nothing to fear from them and it lets you feel morally superior and all that, but at some point you gotta recognize that some people are right to be concerned and work against their persecution.
Again, taking an argument and misusing it doesn't actually weaken the original argument. It's possible for the perpetrators and the victims of genocide to use the exact same rhetoric against each other, but then it's on you to figure out who's being full of shit and not go "maybe the truth is in the middle between genocide and escaping a genocide".
I'm not throwing away the humanity of Nazis. I'm acknowledging that their goal in life is to eradicate me and people like me, and that anything I can do to slow them down might save a life at some point. Time spent fixing the lawnmower is spent not agitating to have people tortured.
Tolerating certain politics as just "differences" in opinion is a luxury for people for whom politics are an intellectual exercise and maybe impact their bank statement at the end of the year, it's not affordable for those for whom it's a question of survival.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
> There is tolerance and then there are things that are not open to discussion
So what's not "open to discussion"? It seems like fundamentally everything about this election has been open to discussion, it's been a weird fucking election. Are you literally saying supporting Trump is a crime so bad that it's not "open to discussion"?
"The line tends to shift as society progresses." You talk about this "line" as if it's a real thing. Let me pose a fairly obvious question, in almost any time period, who imposed the limits of "what is not open to discussion", and what were their motives? Keep in mind, things that are obviously true don't need to be "not open to discussion", because nobody is bothering to discuss them.
How does this work in practice? This is something I've been thinking about and am struggling with. What if people don't agree with you and feel the same way about things not being open to discussion? Compromise? Split off into smaller and smaller groups that agree with each other? Refuse to work together? Shun? Shame? Resort to violence?
I'm serious. I don't have a good answer. I think it depends on the issue, but I know people are going to draw their lines differently. Thoughts?
I think in practice you might be Brendan Eich, donate to an anti same-sex marriage PAC, find that your work community does not feel gay marriage should be open to discussion and are out of a job as CEO of Mozilla.
Ok. Would you clarify who the "you" refers to? I'm not sure if you're referring to me, Peter Thiel, or some general person who doesn't hold the same views as you.
Thanks for clarifying. I was aware it could have different meanings and just wanted to make sure. And thanks for responding to the original question. I think the issue is a lot more complex than can be extrapolated from a single example. Like I said, it's something I've been thinking about, some heuristic or guideline that can be applied to more than just this particular situation. I wish I had a grip on a better answer. Watching people go at each other on Hacker News has been hard.
Serious question: is there any action he could take, any line he could cross, literally anything he could do or say that would ever, in your mind, be sufficient to justify refusing to associate with him?
> people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with
Yes, they do. However, opinions and material support are different things.
> are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently?
Expressing your opinion with a vote and funding a campaign with >$1M are not anywhere close to equivalent.
> half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington
That's exactly what happened, as expected[1]. Unfortunately, most people were more interested in playing political games or blaming their favorite scapegoat.
Sometimes the people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with. The melodrama over Thiel's political opinions is pointless. If you demand Thiel steps down, are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently?
Personally I lean liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with all the theatrics I've seen in this election from the left. The Trump phenomenon arguably occurred because half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington in the form of donald trump. Maybe we should all get to understand our neighbors instead of doubling down on us-vs-them tribalism.