[apsec112]

"But consider the following: I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china.

Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...

[phillmv]

Thought experiment:

Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

[apsec112]

"Cooperation is unstable, in both game theory and evolutionary biology, without some kind of punishment for defection. So it's one thing to subtract points off someone's reputation for mistakes they make themselves, directly. But if you also look askance at someone for refusing to castigate a person or idea, then that is punishment of non-punishers, a far more dangerous idiom that can lock an equilibrium in place even if it's harmful to everyone involved." - http://lesswrong.com/lw/42/tolerate_tolerance/

[zardgiv]

Quoting a big old paragraph from someone else without providing any of your own content is just lazy.

[stcredzero]

Thought experiment:

Is there a point at which you can treat a person as "sufficiently abhorrent" to dissuade you from associating with them? Does this point include being a productive member of society and taking part in a democratic civic life?

In terms of having a tolerant and open multicultural society, the only things that shouldn't be tolerated are actions and words that run counter to having a tolerant and open multicultural society. Sexism and racism run counter to a tolerant and open multicultural society. However, the exercise of authority to shun those with opinions you don't like is also intolerance. It's obeying "the letter" of tolerance but runs entirely counter to the spirit of tolerance. If you advocate a society where the government codifies and enacts tolerance, but all the citizens are intolerant in their civic life, then you advocate a society of divided enemy groups with a dead civic life, where opposing camps uneasily coexist, fling epithets over walls, and begin to regard the "others" as less than human.

You can't fight intolerance with intolerance precisely because you can't fight hate with hate. The only real way to fight intolerance is through real communication and convincing people. Venting frustration only plays into "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."

[phillmv]

Yes, of course, obviously.

I would not associate myself with, say, someone who in their off time writes long diatribes about how my ethnic group is lazy, incompetent, undeserving of legal rights and fit only to be exterminated or enslaved.

I'd be a fool not to shun this person and encourage others to do the same, however nice and pleasant they may be in person.

For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole.

What you describe is not a new problem. To quote Karl Popper,

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[shkkmo]

Social shaming can only work when the person being shamed is being included in the society doing the shaming. If you shame and exclude someone, you are going to end up alienating and possibly radicalizing them.

Social shaming should be used carefully, sparingly and among close knit communities.

Social shaming that works: "You are welcome, but the things you are saying make me and the people around me feel bad."

Social shaming that doesn't work: "You are a bad person and are not welcome here."

[zardgiv]

I don't think we need to worry about radicalizing the guy talking about how some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

[shkkmo]

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? To the best of my knowledge, he was not advocating for the enslavement of anyone. However, I don't care to argue about or defend his writings.

My issue is with the belief that by alienating someone from your 'polite society' you will somehow shame them into changing their views.

Social shaming works only when it is done by people within the shame-ee's social group. By excluding a person, you are directly decreasing the effectiveness of that shaming.

[stcredzero]

For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole.

What Social Media has generated is a millieu that jumps at the chance to engage in social shaming. It's the same sort of corruption as embodied in a state the jumps at the chance to prosecute to gratify the crowd, regardless of how actual justice is served. I see social shaming as so often practiced as a way for one group to enforce its will over another and assure itself of its own agency. (Such groups also profit non-materially from the additional division and outrage generated.)

it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so"

If that's to apply, then the people who are using it first need to have convinced society at large.

Analogy: there are points of etiquette that only apply in a particular culture. If you try enforcing one culture's etiquette when you are the lone member of that culture in a different cultural group, then you are just being foolish. So what about when there are approximately equal numbers? Taking such action in that case also just causes division. It's only when there is a clear majority, and when the majority acts in a benevolent and inclusive fashion that pressure works. Absent benevolence from the majority, there is also only more division. This is just human nature.

In the group dynamic, it doesn't matter that in your mind, you "are right." For one thing, you are only human, so you could well be wrong or misapplying context. In the end, you are either coercing someone or convincing them. It's only the latter that brings true change.

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

This is exactly my point. This is why an "intolerance in spirit" which damages civic life shouldn't be tolerated. Those who are intolerant of others having a different opinion are engaging in a form of selfish intolerance. They are like free speech advocates who suppress their opponents gatherings or religious people who think freedom of religion only applies to their own religion. Somehow such people only need to obey the letter of the law, and the spirit of their principle only needs to apply to those they like.

(EDIT: How can we measure the sincerity of someone's tolerance? Are they ready to tolerate someone who is presently behaving in a tolerant fashion? Or are they champing at the bit to be "righteously intolerant" because someone was intolerant in the distant past or in an entirely different context? I would say the former is sincere tolerance and the latter is a short-sighted and selectively applied "tolerance.")

[phillmv]

We're not discussing social media. We're discussing whether to extend the graces of polite society to people with abhorrent views.

It's not clear to me whether you understand the spirit of the Popper quote.

As I interpret it, it can be boiled down to: it's OK to not tolerate those whose unimpeded actions would to destroy your tolerant society.

I'm afraid that in that context I don't understand the rest of your comment about sincere tolerance.

[stcredzero]

We're not discussing social media. We're discussing whether to extend the graces of polite society to people with abhorrent views.

Extending the graces of polite society is one kind of tolerance. Another lesson of history is that peace and harmony is found through commerce. One of the closes friendships in the house when I was an undergrad was between a gay man and a woman who started out rabidly homophobic. They became best friends because they watched soap operas together. Had he behaved as you advocate and shunned her for what she thought, then she would never have become his best friend and she would never have realized the unfounded errors of her upbringing.

Yes, people who have done bad things should be punished. Going around punishing people for stuff they've said is simply intolerant. A society that enacts a regime like this through social means is not virtuous because it has tolerant and protective laws. It would be no better than a society that has granted racial minorities equal status on paper, but continues to oppress them through other means. (Yes, I am talking about the US.) One of the key messages of Gandhi and MLK is that your moral and philosophical consistency is vital, lest you unwittingly become yet another oppressor.

OK to not tolerate those whose unimpeded actions would to destroy your tolerant society.

Being tolerant in just the letter of the law but highly intolerant "in spirit" will destroy a tolerant society. It is happening right now. As with many things, it is harder to see at the top of the socioeconomic ladder and much easier to see at the bottom.

[greenrd]

>If that's to apply, then the people who are using it first need to have convinced society at large.

Just FYI, the controversial speaker at issue here quotes Carlyle - a man who advocated slavery, and using lethal force to put down a rebellion of disenfranchised former slaves in Jamaica - approvingly.

[sparky_z]

As long as they don't act on their views (except to write essays explaining and discussing them), then no.

If they were rude to me or to others (in a personal way), then I would not want to associate with them, but that's true of anybody regardless of their views.

[phillmv]

You're not OP but I can't dignify an asinine Yudkowsky quote with a reply, so you get one instead.

Why are essays non-actions in your view? Suppose someone had a lengthly career writing $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW essays and promoting them on the internet. Indeed, was famous for it.

Is there no $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW that would cause you to feel awkward about being known to associate with this person?

[sparky_z]

I never said essays are non-actions. In fact, I used them as an example of them a type of action: one which would not cause me to disassociate myself from someone else.

I might feel a little awkward about it, mostly because I'm sure there would be several people like you doing their damnedest to make me feel that way. I'm not a robot, and I'm subject to all the same sorts of social pressure as everybody else. But if essay writing was their only "crime", I like to think that I would resist that pressure. I believe strongly in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas (not just in the "constitutional law" sense, but in the "how we should act as individuals in a free liberal society" sense). It's the only antidote to groupthink.

Imagine how much sooner public attitudes to homosexuality might have shifted if people had always felt free to discuss alternatives to the status quo without being ostracized.

Not that I don't think we should hold people to certain standards. I just think those standards should be behavior-based, not opinion-based. In another reply, you mentioned Karl Popper's quote about not tolerating intolerance, which I fully agree with. But intolerance is a behavior, not an opinion. People have called this guy a racist (and maybe he is; I haven't read his writing), but it's the people who refuse to be in the same room as him who are acting intolerantly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy seems happy to share the conference with anyone who wants to attend, regardless of their race. That's tolerance, no matter what he thinks in his secret heart of hearts, or even what he has written about on the internet.

[phillmv]

I suppose I just don't understand why you'd consider proselytizing abhorrent views to be an insufficient cause or behaviour. They occupy space, and are capable of terrorizing others just all the same.

To extend my other comment, which you've read:

Suppose you and I were friends. Suppose further that I discover that you routinely have over Mr Qux, who has an extensive archive of Medium posts suggesting that society would be better off if my ethnic group were to be exterminated.

Mr Qux doesn't say it needs to happen. He spends a lot of time recommending that people not act on his words. But there it is, essay after essay carefully explaining how all of society's ills would be solved if my ethnic group were to just disappear overnight.

Why, you reply, we only ever discuss software architecture. He's charming and effusive, and exceedingly polite whenever in the presence of others of your ethnic group. His medium posts never come up for discussion!

He's a brilliant software engineer, you go on. In fact, I'm sure he'd be a great hire at my company and have forwarded his resume.

It'd be irrelevant to me how pleasant this person is. He considers me unworthy of breathing the same air. Should he ever be in a position of power over me, how could I possibly trust him to be impartial? How am I supposed to believe that his impressively well articulated views on my inferiority would never impinge on his ability to produce an objective assessment of my abilities?

It'd be hard for me not to interpret your behaviour as implicitly condoning that man's views.

--

Nobody's ever threatened to extinguish my ethnic group, tho there are some negative stereotypes. But it's rather easy for me to empathize with the above scenario.

[sparky_z]

I honestly don't think a person like you're describing actually exists (as an otherwise perfectly polite and well-adjusted member of society--including to members of that ethnic group that they interact with personally). But lets suppose for the sake of argument that they did.

I probably wouldn't invite them over to my house, nor champion their job application at my workplace. That goes beyond tolerance. But what I wouldn't do is try to get dropped from giving a convention talk (which they're qualified for), or seek to get them fired from their job or shunned from their peer group.

[Kalium]

Preface: people have tried to extinguish my ethnic group. They've even made a good go at it in living memory.

I am uncomfortable with the notion that a person should be shunned professionally because of their views. That's one thing those people did to members of my ethnic group and those who were not in favor of genocide.

[ankushnarula]

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls from the same link in the other thread)

So some people sincerely believe Yarvin's very presence is a threat while others find his online philosophical rants to be little more than meanderings.

With that said here's my answer to your thought experiment:

Yarvin would be uninvited if he had been proven (not alleged) to have:

* harmed or advocated harm to anyone * rallied for pro-discriminatory policies * lobbied for pro-discriminatory policies * addressed someone with discriminatory slurs

If he were to deny the evidence then it would be a done deal and he would be banned.

However, everyone gets a chance to repent in my book. So if he had been proven to do these things and he came clean (or eventually came clean) then he would get a chance to publicly apologize online for wide distribution - and again live at the conference at the start of his talk.

---

The real answer to your question is that I would not associate with anyone proven to have done abhorrent things. But I regularly associate with people who have all kinds of abhorrent thoughts.

[Turing_Machine]

How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century.

If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?

[tatterdemalion]

This factually false. Preventable deaths as the result of government policy are atrocious, but they are not murder. "Capitalists" would not come out looking good either if the deaths that resulted from government policy in capitalist countries were called "capitalist murders."

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the gulags weren't murder, or that the Holodomor wasn't murder. I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.

[Turing_Machine]

I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.

If you lock someone in a room, prevent him from leaving, and don't give him food, he will die, and you will be (correctly) charged with murder.

Can you name the capitalist countries that have murdered millions of their own citizens for us? Or even one such country? Nazi Germany was an authoritarian socialist regime, so don't even try going there.

Thanks.

[tatterdemalion]

You are deeply ignorant about modern history and your posts are thinly veiled ideological statements. It would be better for everyone if you didn't post.

[richmarr]

Surely this is about as rationally meaningful as counting the number of deaths caused by people who nominally identify as Christian and basing your opinion of all Christians on that.