> Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views?
How does ME accepting tolerance cause the OTHER guy to be tolerant as well?
I don't swing the first punch during fights, but I'll absolutely punch back. That doesn't change the fact that fights happen to break out. One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them.
> One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them.
No, being a tolerant person means tolerating people even when you find their views wrong, immoral, or heinous. There's nothing impressive about tolerating the views you like and not tolerating the views you don't.
When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed.
This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism.
> When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed.
If the opponent is more charismatic than you, you will lose this fight. There are some very intolerant people out there who are more charismatic than you, and are better able to recruit supporters to their cause.
> This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism.
This notion that YOU are more charming than the "intolerant" people is naive. What if the other guy is more charming, and manages to rile up crowds better than you can?
There's a reason why Obama signed papers to just kill Anwar Al-Awlaki with a drone strike. At some point, you just stop playing the "tolerance" game and gotta get your hands dirty. The idea that we can teach tolerance to everyone else is naive and counterproductive at this age.
If your opponent has view you consider intolerant, and the majority of society agrees with them you're saying the right thing to do is use suppression to enforce your minority view on the rest of society. Do you really realize what you're saying here?
Under this logic if I think abortion is murder, and I consider everyone who supports abortion is intolerant then I am justified in suppressing pro-abortion speech even if the majority of society is pro-choice.
The end result of your line of thinking is civil war. Coexistence with people who have values and morals different from each others becomes impossible when people's response to views they find wrong is to be intolerant toward those views.
> If your opponent has view you consider intolerant
If my opponent thinks I'm intolerant, then ME increasing my level of tolerance does NOTHING to fix the problem.
> The end result of your line of thinking is civil war.
Not if the other side down backs down first. Which is usually what happens. Why should the onus be on ME to back down?
------
Yeah, its complicated. But play with the game-theory of the model. That's the current direction we're marching towards politically. My point is that your philosophy of "tolerate the opponent" does NOTHING to stop this game-theory matrix. My optimal move is to be intolerant, especially if my opponent is intolerant.
Yeah, its a prisoner's dilemma. But that's the reality of politics.
> If my opponent thinks I'm intolerant, then ME increasing my level of tolerance does NOTHING to fix the problem.
Yes, it does. Responding to intolerance with tolerance provides the change (however slim) to engage with these people and change their views. Responding with intolerance of your own deprives you of this chance. The former offers some chance of change, however slim. The latter offers none.
> Not if the other side down backs down first. Which is usually what happens.
The problem is, the "other side" is thinking the exact same thing. Also, the way you frame tolerance as one "side" against another highlights the way people use "intolerance" just justification for the exclusion of the out-group.
> Why should the onus be on ME to back down?
The onus isn't on anyone to "back down" the onus is on society to foster a culture where the response to encountering someone with view they find heinous is to engage and try to bring them in alignment with society.
> Yeah, its complicated. But play with the game-theory of the model. That's the current direction we're marching towards politically. My point is that your philosophy of "tolerate the opponent" does NOTHING to stop this game-theory matrix. My optimal move is to be intolerant, especially if my opponent is intolerant.
No, it is not because we're all on the same team. By selecting the option that causes a net loss but a personal gain for yourself, you're leaving all of society worse off. The "other side" is still part of the society to which you belong, like it or not.
I am seriously disturbed by this line of reasoning, the thought that it's better to leave all of society worse off as long as the "other side" is harmed more than "our side". The end result is that the two "sides' cannot coexist, and one either destroys or expels the other.
As I've challenged other posters before... this whole discussion is taking place in reality. Your theories about peace and quiet are all nice and all, but it doesn't work in practice.
Go hangout at Stormfront. Talk to white-nationalists. They're all gathering there, and you can go try to convince them to stop being racist if you so desire.
This isn't some hypothetical la-la land. You literally can go to white-nationalist websites and talk with them and try to convince them to be otherwise more tolerant of others.
----------
In any case: I've got slanty eyes since my parents were from an East Asian country. I can't change how my eyes look like, I'm distinctively Asian (although I'm unable to speak or write in any language aside from English. I've lived here my whole life).
I can change my viewpoints because I'm a rational person. But if white-nationalists make an enemy out of me, there's nothing I can do about it. I cant change my eyes or skin color.
Fortunately for me, white-nationalists are more scared of other races than my race. But they're still not exactly welcoming of me either.
---------
As I said before: how can My life (or society in general) get better if I become more tolerant of the white-nationalists who want to make America whiter and with less immigrants? They want to kick me out of the country (well, starting with Hispanics first. But I know I'm on their list). How am I supposed to "tolerate" that viewpoint?
> I am seriously disturbed by this line of reasoning, the thought that it's better to leave all of society worse off as long as the "other side" is harmed more than "our side". The end result is that the two "sides' cannot coexist, and one either destroys or expels the other.
Do you wish to "tolerate" white nationalism, and their philosophy to kick immigrants out of the country? To the point where some of them are going out to El Paso and literally shooting people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting
This is what we are dealing with:
> "In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."
> As I said before: how can My life (or society in general) get better if I become more tolerant of the white-nationalists who want to make America whiter and with less immigrants? They want to kick me out of the country (well, starting with Hispanics first. But I know I'm on their list). How am I supposed to "tolerate" that viewpoint?
Because if you do engage with them you can figure out why they think those things and try to change their views.
By comparison if you behave intolerantly towards them, then they will become even more entrenched in their belief that immigrants do not tolerate whites, thus reinforcing their xenophobia.
> Do you wish to "tolerate" white nationalism, and their philosophy to kick immigrants out of the country? To the point where some of them are going out to El Paso and literally shooting people:
Speech and actions are two different things. People can talk about hanging wall Street bankers all they want, but that becomes illegal the moment that this becomes violence. Same with white nationalism or any other belief.
> Have you tried to do this? Because I've tried. It doesn't seem to work.
Yes, I have talked to many people that hold views that are labeled as "white nationalist" and engaging with them can change their views. Case in point, I managed to convince people to support immigration tied to employment. I sought to understand why this person opposed immigration, and learned that they feared that immigrants would become dependent on social services. So I made the point that immigration policy can be structure in a way to avoid state dependence.
You often won't be able to make them pull a total 180, but you can usually make them more nuanced in their opinions.
> Because I want to live here, a location I've lived my entire life, they believe that I "don't tolerate whites"? This is ridiculous on the face of it.
You're right, it is ridiculous. But that's what they believe. And if you treat them with intolerance (which is what you've been trying to justify throughout this thread) you're only reinforcing that belief.
> No, seriously. Go try arguing against a white nationalist for a while. Its utterly hopeless to get them to change their opinions.
Not with this kind of attitude, it isn't. But actually try and engage meaningfully, understand why they believe the things they do, and show them that you are willing to tolerate them even though they don't want to tolerate you and the chances of changing their minds improves considerably.
> Maybe it should be illegal before the violence breaks out. You know, to prevent violence, instead of reacting to it.
You'll have to start by repealing the first amendment. And after you do, there will be people that will seek to label your views as violent and ban them.
> Case in point, I managed to convince people to support immigration tied to employment
I appreciate your honesty, but that's not what I'm talking about. Immigration or anti-immigration is a solid political subject but its "safe". That's the stuff normal people talk about.
Have you ever met someone who believed in The Great Replacement or White Genocide? Its basically a conspiracy theory: these people are not rational anymore. No amount of arguing can convince them otherwise. I'm Asian. Just talking with a white-nationalist reminds them of the Great Replacement. Just seeing me enforces their viewpoint.
Yeah, being tolerant of other viewpoints works... when the other person is also a good person at heart. But when you meet truly despicable nutjobs on the white-national spectrum, you lose hope in that "tolerance" viewpoint rather quickly. The only option I've concluded from my experience in that matter, is to censor them and prevent them from recruiting more people.
I dunno, maybe you can figure out a better plan. But I'm perfectly willing to use the censorship button to mitigate this problem. And unfortunately, I don't think I have any better option.
> Have you ever met someone who believed in The Great Replacement or White Genocide? Its basically a conspiracy theory: these people are not rational anymore. No amount of arguing can convince them otherwise.
What is your plan for these people then? Kill them? Put them in reeducation camps? Deport them?
Like it or not, these people exist and they're not going anywhere. We can either:
1) be intolerant towards them, thus making them form their own communities and grow more and more extreme because they're surrounded by like minded people.
2) be tolerant towards them, and try to change their beliefs.
Do you think that thes people are more likely to change their views if the rest of society is intolerant towards them and the only people they talk to are other white nationalist? Or if society does act treat them with tolerance, and they interact with more non-white-nationalists.
If we treat them with intolerance, then the only community they will find is with other white nationalists. If we do this, the problem is going to get worse and there are going to be more attacks.
Tolerance doesn't somehow prevent white supremacists from forming their own communities or becoming more extreme. If anything, it encourages them to continue doing so, because tolerance is a signal that society will accept their behavior and beliefs as normal, and that there will be no negative social consequences for them, at least until their plans for mass murder become action.
And white nationalists talk to non-white nationalists all the time. That's how they recruit new white nationalists. They're not ignorant of the arguments made against their beliefs - they're well aware, and yet they reject those arguments and persist, because irrational beliefs can't be rationalized out of. Most conspiracy theories would vanish in a puff of logic if that's how people worked.
Simply letting them organize where they will to spread their hatred unabated on any and every available platform, and then only politely and respectfully trying to convince them that their plans to throw the perfidious Jews into the ovens is a bad idea isn't going to do anything but push the Overton window of tolerance for their intolerance in their direction.
> What is your plan for these people then? Kill them? Put them in reeducation camps? Deport them?
Censor them, and prevent them from recruiting more. Wipe them off of Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Ban hate-speech.
> 1) be intolerant towards them, thus making them form their own communities and grow more and more extreme because they're surrounded by like minded people.
And take down these communities as they pop up. Its like weeding, you gotta keep knocking it down. I don't expect perfection. But make it a hassle for them to organize.
> Censor them, and prevent them from recruiting more. Wipe them off of Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Ban hate-speech.
Again, not possible unless you repeal the first amendment. Not really possible even if you do, since TOR exists.
> And take down these communities as they pop up. Its like weeding, you gotta keep knocking it down. I don't expect perfection. But make it a hassle for them to organize
Do you realize that part of the reason why these people hate immigrants is because they think immigrants hate them and want to get rid of them? Referring to them as "weeds" that need to be purged is playing straight into their narrative.
Knock down their communities and they will see it as proof of their persecution, and use this censorship to appeal to more peole. Deprive them of the ability to use words, and they will use violence.
White nationalism has been around for over a century. The attacks only started to accelerate when they started getting deplatformed. Make no mistake, this approach has been making them more violent and it will make them even more violent if it continues.
1st Amendment only applies to US Government. It doesn't apply to webpage administrators. As such, it is certainly possible for Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter to start to clamp down on the subject.
The daily stormer runs its own website. Genuine white nationalists have been kicked off Facebook and YouTube for a long time now.
You cannot knock down these communities. It is not possible without drastically reducing civil liberties. Freedom of speech and association are not going away. The only viable option to engage and attempt to change their views.
I know. But that website is hosted somewhere, and maybe we can convince those hosts to take it down.
> The only viable option to engage and attempt to change their views.
And you're free to attempt to do that at Daily Stormer / Stormfront / any other website where they pop up. But I'm telling you that trying to convince them doesn't seem to work.
> I know. But that website is hosted somewhere, and maybe we can convince those hosts to take it down.
And then they will set up their own servers. Or move to Gab. Or go to TOR. You can't keep people from communicating on the internet. It's not possible. Countries like mainland China have spent a lot more time and money trying to do it, and it doesn't work.
And even if you do somehow manage to kick them off the internet, they'll organize through regular mail. The daily stormer was (and I think still is) a print publication. The post office legally cannot stop them from using the postal service.
> And you're free to attempt to do that at Daily Stormer / Stormfront / any other website where they pop up. But I'm telling you that trying to convince them doesn't seem to work.
I'll take something that "doesn't seem to work" over something that is actively making things worse. Again, these communities have only become more extreme and more violent the more that society has tried to shut them down.
"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."
> Go hangout at Stormfront. Talk to white-nationalists. They're all gathering there
And lots of those people didn’t use to hang out there before we banned them from mainstream forums for having simple disagreements about what good policies and governance is.
We threw them out to the loonies, and wonder why they come back crazy. How about we take some responsibility for that?
Leave them on mainstream forums where their words can lead to greater amounts of recruitment from the population? Reducing their recruiting arm to smaller-and-smaller portions of the internet is the goal.
The white-nationalist idea of White Genocide and "The Great Replacement" holds a great deal of power. As they discuss this nonsense in the mainstream, it only makes more and more believers come to their side.
> For me, that day was a long time ago. And that was not - and is not - my defense.
Please share your experience. Did you run away? Did you actually change their opinion?
Here's my story: for a month, a man with an anti-Asian sign would be marching around and pointing his "Go back to China" sign at me. (My parents are Filipino and I'm born in America) What do you expect me to do, walk out and have a reasonable discussion with the guy?
No. You call the police and get that man out of my life. No one has to tolerate this kind of hate. And no amount of reasonable discussion can convince a crazy man to tolerate others.
Deal with the problem. Get them out, kick them out. I'm not going to wax-philosophical and think "oh, he's demonstrating his freedom of speech / 1st amendment rights". Nah, he's trespassing on private property and I want him out of my workplace.
True story. This is how you deal with problems. "Tolerating" the hate only makes it fester and get worse. Hoping for the man to stop marching (after he's been marching for literally weeks) is the height of insanity.
---------
Look, we've got Christchurch mosque shootings and El Paso shootings. There's a hateful philosophy which is GROWING. Its pretty clear to me that "tolerance" has lost the fight. There's literal blood in the streets now, as the hate is beginning to fester and spread even further.
We can work to slow down the hate today, or we can sit still and "tolerate" it for the years to come, hoping it goes away by itself.
How does ME accepting tolerance cause the OTHER guy to be tolerant as well?
I don't swing the first punch during fights, but I'll absolutely punch back. That doesn't change the fact that fights happen to break out. One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them.
That's just the facts.