[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.

[zardgiv]

I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change Moldbug's mind.

[shkkmo]

The person I was responding to was using social shaming as one of this two justifications for exclusion.

I don't appreciate your tone.

[rmsrmsrms]

I think the argument he makes consists of several claims:

1) black people are an ethnic group or race // exact terminology and semantics is debatable

2) being black means you have a lower IQ (on average) // true in the US

3) IQ is in part genetically determined // true

4) the lower IQ of blacks is due to genetics // pure speculation, not possible to verify due to poor environment

5) having a lower IQ makes you a better slave // speculation

6) being black makes you a genetically better slave // follows from 4 and 5

It's possible that Moldbug reconsidered claim 4 due to all the attention it got. He reads HN.

[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.