I think actually both are right - this bar, AND the bakery. Both are not essential services like grocery stores, so I see no problem with both refusing business with anyone they don't like.
The bakery issue is a bit more complicated as it was not refusing business in general to gay people - it was only not wanting to write some text on the cake that the gay people wanted. Although bigoted, I am fine with that, as this is not an essential service of any kind, although they better not have anything like "we will write on your cake whatever you want" in their advertising, as false advertising can rightfully lead to civil claims.
The bar too? No, bars generally don't advertise that they would give everyone a drink. They just call themselves a "bar". So I see no false advertising related issues there.
Would you be fine with a bakery refusing to serve black people? If it had a sign saying "whites only" above the door?
Trump supporters are choosing to be bigoted and hateful, they are choosing to destroy other people's lives just for fun. They are not a persecuted group, they are receiving the consequences of choosing to persecute others.
not morally, not logically, and not practically. I'm not even arguing against your position. I don't feel like taking/stating it atm. Just that "intolerance of intolerance is tolerance" is incorrect.
but if you reject someone you aren't wholely tolerant anymore. You create a partition of that which you are tolerant of. If you reject only the intolerant, you create a tolerant subset by ousting, in the same way an intolerant group ousts the ones they do not tolerate.
Morally, you make yourself superior in claiming intolerance is an inferior position to take. Again partitioning into subsets.
I think I more or less embedded 'practical' in the two cases stated.
I'd say mathematically I'd express it more like: 0.9 * 0.9 != 1 Except in practical terms one would not use 0.9 but some selector/(sub)set that is not empty. (Let's ignore the empty set edge case for convenience.)
I haven't read everything, but this seems to be the key point:
> "Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices."
So, then I'm left with two questions: 1. What do you call 'unchecked'? 2. Until what point can you still call a society tolerant? .. if it grows into an intolerant majority.
for 1.) Let's say all butchers in town reject atheists. Now an atheist can start a butcher. All other atheists are welcome there. At the moment where he is also actively rejected, atheists threatened, butchery blokkaded, etc. Then you start to trespass on basic human rights and regulations. If those are also "special-cased" you would probably already have reached a point where it is no longer called a tolerant society due to the extent of intolerant influence.
the intolerant ahouldn't be left unchecked. That might indeed invite/evolve into such circumstances. But I'd argue there are objective grounds that are the checks and balances, where they are necessary. (As opposed to by subjective/instinctual preference.)
But your point about the "cancerous growth"-like effect would be a risk. (Hence not unchecked)
Reminds me of Veritasium's video on game theory and why some things aren't zero-sum games. Similar(-ish) problem youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-k…
Bekijk je favoriete video's, luister naar de muziek die je leuk vindt, upload originele content en deel alles met vrienden, familie en anderen op YouTube.
@timezoneless the problem is that intolerance is indeed always growing like a cancer and requires society and the law to hold it in check. Zero sum game is the wrong analogy. It's more like you need to take the trash out every Thursday or your house, the city, society, chokes on the trash and degrades and, in extreme scenarios, dies from it's own toxic waste
Being intolerant of intolerance is merely a maintenance function of society
divVerent
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •I think actually both are right - this bar, AND the bakery. Both are not essential services like grocery stores, so I see no problem with both refusing business with anyone they don't like.
The bakery issue is a bit more complicated as it was not refusing business in general to gay people - it was only not wanting to write some text on the cake that the gay people wanted. Although bigoted, I am fine with that, as this is not an essential service of any kind, although they better not have anything like "we will write on your cake whatever you want" in their advertising, as false advertising can rightfully lead to civil claims.
The bar too? No, bars generally don't advertise that they would give everyone a drink. They just call themselves a "bar". So I see no false advertising related issues there.
FediThing 🏳️🌈
in reply to divVerent • • •Would you be fine with a bakery refusing to serve black people? If it had a sign saying "whites only" above the door?
Trump supporters are choosing to be bigoted and hateful, they are choosing to destroy other people's lives just for fun. They are not a persecuted group, they are receiving the consequences of choosing to persecute others.
Joseph likes this.
TZL
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •I'm not even arguing against your position. I don't feel like taking/stating it atm. Just that "intolerance of intolerance is tolerance" is incorrect.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to TZL • • •@timezoneless
don't talk to me, talk to karl popper:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_…
it is absolutely correct
-1 X -1 = 1
same as:
"i hate gay people"
--->
"i oppose you because you hate gay people"
these are exact opposites, not the same intolerance merely because they take a negative stand against someone. what matters is *who* and *what*
furthermore, it is a moral imperative to be intolerant of intolerance
logical paradox in decision-making theory
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)TZL
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •but if you reject someone you aren't wholely tolerant anymore. You create a partition of that which you are tolerant of. If you reject only the intolerant, you create a tolerant subset by ousting, in the same way an intolerant group ousts the ones they do not tolerate.
Morally, you make yourself superior in claiming intolerance is an inferior position to take. Again partitioning into subsets.
I think I more or less embedded 'practical' in the two cases stated.
TZL
in reply to TZL • • •Except in practical terms one would not use 0.9 but some selector/(sub)set that is not empty. (Let's ignore the empty set edge case for convenience.)
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to TZL • • •@timezoneless
you are playing games and avoiding the logic of the point
read the wikipedia link
TZL
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •I haven't read everything, but this seems to be the key point:
> "Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices."
So, then I'm left with two questions:
1. What do you call 'unchecked'?
2. Until what point can you still call a society tolerant? .. if it grows into an intolerant majority.
TZL
in reply to TZL • • •TZL
in reply to TZL • • •the intolerant ahouldn't be left unchecked. That might indeed invite/evolve into such circumstances. But I'd argue there are objective grounds that are the checks and balances, where they are necessary. (As opposed to by subjective/instinctual preference.)
But your point about the "cancerous growth"-like effect would be a risk. (Hence not unchecked)
Reminds me of Veritasium's video on game theory and why some things aren't zero-sum games. Similar(-ish) problem youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-k…
- YouTube
www.youtube.comBen Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to TZL • • •@timezoneless the problem is that intolerance is indeed always growing like a cancer and requires society and the law to hold it in check. Zero sum game is the wrong analogy. It's more like you need to take the trash out every Thursday or your house, the city, society, chokes on the trash and degrades and, in extreme scenarios, dies from it's own toxic waste
Being intolerant of intolerance is merely a maintenance function of society