Except people try to push “hurt” to include people being honest that they don’t like the way someone else lives or don’t see that person as living up to their own values and morals.
That doesn’t work at scale. Everyone in the world does something someone in the world finds extremely immoral and feels passionately about.
Everyone has a right to be honest. They don’t have the right to call for others to be harmed or try to make them lower class citizens.
Two people having a difficult discussion trying to understand one another though both live in ways the other feels to be against their own values and mores is an example of mature adults demonstrating tolerance.
People shrieking that they must kill anyone who doesn’t like something about them is an example of intolerance.
And cannibals and people who eat dogs would have to live with hearing people tell them that’s evil and wrong, and deeply religious people have to live with hearing people refute all of their beliefs. You don’t associate with the people you can’t get along with.
Forcing everyone to not state opinions that might offend everyone doesn’t work, because the tens of thousands of combinations of cultures and backgrounds in billions of people mean that trying to force that would mean no one being able to speak.
There are people who feel that things that are completely unfactual are deeply meaningful personal parts of themselves, so we wouldn’t even be able to stick to fact alone and not ever speak our opinions.
More than that it simply wouldn’t work in reality, and the voices that could gain enough popular votes to make saying anything they don’t like crime would do so while all of the minorities without that would have to endure it. There is no equitable way to manage it in reality.
People can hate me because of my skin tone. It’s weird, and I’m not a fan of it, but they have the right to their personal world view and they have the right to express it just as I have the right to express mine. I do my best to get along and avoid being around the worst of them. If they start calling for me to be killed or to be forced into slavery then that’s a problem. If they started following me around constantly chanting racist shit trying to get me to snap, that would also be a problem. But them simply being honest about their view is not. That isn’t harming me, it’s advertising to the world that they’re shitty people.
IMO history shows that your approach breaks down the second a hateful group manages to cover sufficiently large swathes of land. You specified that you’d ban individuals from harassing targets:
If they started following me around constantly chanting racist shit trying to get me to snap, that would also be a problem.
But what if it’s not individual people following you around, but entire towns full of people chanting racist shit every time you interact with other people (e.g. groceries, physicians, all private/public services)? You’re still made into a second-class citizen.
And we literally saw this in the southern US both before, during AND in some locations after the US civil rights movement, so this is not a theoretical concern.
You’re arguing with a 50 year old black man who has lived in the US his entire life. I got to enjoy the years in prison for being black thing. There’s a huge difference between people expressing their honest views, as shitty as you may find those to be, and people trying to actually chase you out of town or hang you.
That’s the entire point of what Popper actually said. Two people having a difficult conversation because both sees the other as living in some way they find to be against their own personal values and morals but accepting that both of them have the same right to exist is an example of mature adults demonstrating tolerance.
Everyone isn’t always going to agree on anything, much less everything. There are plenty of things you do and about yourself that other people in the world would find against their own values and morals. They don’t have the right to force you do be different or be unable to speak honestly from your own point of view. Likewise you don’t have the right to force that onto others.
I’m not trying to argue, sorry, I’m really trying to understand. I’ll try to concisely express where I fail to follow along.
The psychological effects of being rejected by most of society have been studied a lot, and it consistently shows a huge impact on people’s well-being and lifespan. At the same time, we know that in entire areas/regions it would not be possible for large parts of targeted groups to live lives consistently circumventing such interactions.
In my mind, this means that either targeted groups would have to accept being second-class citizens in these locations, or society has to attempt to ban such practices.
There are more issues, but IMO this is the one I can’t see how to argue against.
Forcing every human to not say anything that any other human might be upset to hear would be forcing that rejection onto everyone. It’s not exactly healthy to tell people they’re not permitted to simply be honest about their views and values.
There are plenty of people that every person in the world would see as not living up to their own values and morals if everyone knew everything about everyone. There will always be people you can’t understand and have a difficult time communicating with because you’re coming from such different points of view. You both have the same right to live, and to be honest about your views and feelings and have you perceive the world.
That’s what tolerance is. It’s not a simple and easy thing because it means accepting that people who strongly believe things total opposite of what you strongly believe have the same right to exist and be honest that you do.
The people who break that for calling on others to be killed, or beaten, or chased out of society, those are the people displaying actual intolerance.
In other words, targeted groups simply have to accept they are second-class citizens. I functionally cannot see a difference between “being chased out of society” and what I’m describing.
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding you, I’m not sure why you’re talking about:
Forcing every human to not say anything that any other human might be upset to hear would be forcing that rejection onto everyone
How would some people saying they don’t like others be condemning anyone to be a second class citizen? Lots of people don’t like lots of other people. I’d have a hard time not wanting to beat the shit out of someone who kept insisting dogs were delicious. That seems horiffic. So I avoid those people.
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding you, I’m not sure why you’re talking about:
Forcing every human to not say anything that any other human might be upset to hear would be forcing that rejection onto everyone
since that’s not what anyone is proposing.
Yes, it is. People keep conflating simply disliking the lifestyles of others with intolerance and criminal assault. That doesn’t work. People have the right to be honest about their own views, even if you disagree with those views.
Some people are deeply religious. You still have the right to debate against and make fun of religion, no matter how deeply demeaning those people find that to be. Likewise those people have the right to not listen to you try to insult something deeply personal to them. If you both fiercely disagree on the topic the best solution is simply not spending time with one another.
Neither person has the right to kill the other or proclaim that those who don’t hold to their personal beliefs are somehow inferior people. That’s preaching hate.
Except people try to push “hurt” to include people being honest that they don’t like the way someone else lives or don’t see that person as living up to their own values and morals.
That doesn’t work at scale. Everyone in the world does something someone in the world finds extremely immoral and feels passionately about.
Everyone has a right to be honest. They don’t have the right to call for others to be harmed or try to make them lower class citizens.
Two people having a difficult discussion trying to understand one another though both live in ways the other feels to be against their own values and mores is an example of mature adults demonstrating tolerance.
People shrieking that they must kill anyone who doesn’t like something about them is an example of intolerance.
Wouldn’t that mean that e.g. trans people have to live with being deadnamed and mis-gendered?
And cannibals and people who eat dogs would have to live with hearing people tell them that’s evil and wrong, and deeply religious people have to live with hearing people refute all of their beliefs. You don’t associate with the people you can’t get along with.
Forcing everyone to not state opinions that might offend everyone doesn’t work, because the tens of thousands of combinations of cultures and backgrounds in billions of people mean that trying to force that would mean no one being able to speak.
There are people who feel that things that are completely unfactual are deeply meaningful personal parts of themselves, so we wouldn’t even be able to stick to fact alone and not ever speak our opinions.
More than that it simply wouldn’t work in reality, and the voices that could gain enough popular votes to make saying anything they don’t like crime would do so while all of the minorities without that would have to endure it. There is no equitable way to manage it in reality.
People can hate me because of my skin tone. It’s weird, and I’m not a fan of it, but they have the right to their personal world view and they have the right to express it just as I have the right to express mine. I do my best to get along and avoid being around the worst of them. If they start calling for me to be killed or to be forced into slavery then that’s a problem. If they started following me around constantly chanting racist shit trying to get me to snap, that would also be a problem. But them simply being honest about their view is not. That isn’t harming me, it’s advertising to the world that they’re shitty people.
IMO history shows that your approach breaks down the second a hateful group manages to cover sufficiently large swathes of land. You specified that you’d ban individuals from harassing targets:
But what if it’s not individual people following you around, but entire towns full of people chanting racist shit every time you interact with other people (e.g. groceries, physicians, all private/public services)? You’re still made into a second-class citizen.
And we literally saw this in the southern US both before, during AND in some locations after the US civil rights movement, so this is not a theoretical concern.
You’re arguing with a 50 year old black man who has lived in the US his entire life. I got to enjoy the years in prison for being black thing. There’s a huge difference between people expressing their honest views, as shitty as you may find those to be, and people trying to actually chase you out of town or hang you.
That’s the entire point of what Popper actually said. Two people having a difficult conversation because both sees the other as living in some way they find to be against their own personal values and morals but accepting that both of them have the same right to exist is an example of mature adults demonstrating tolerance.
Everyone isn’t always going to agree on anything, much less everything. There are plenty of things you do and about yourself that other people in the world would find against their own values and morals. They don’t have the right to force you do be different or be unable to speak honestly from your own point of view. Likewise you don’t have the right to force that onto others.
I’m not trying to argue, sorry, I’m really trying to understand. I’ll try to concisely express where I fail to follow along.
The psychological effects of being rejected by most of society have been studied a lot, and it consistently shows a huge impact on people’s well-being and lifespan. At the same time, we know that in entire areas/regions it would not be possible for large parts of targeted groups to live lives consistently circumventing such interactions.
In my mind, this means that either targeted groups would have to accept being second-class citizens in these locations, or society has to attempt to ban such practices.
There are more issues, but IMO this is the one I can’t see how to argue against.
Forcing every human to not say anything that any other human might be upset to hear would be forcing that rejection onto everyone. It’s not exactly healthy to tell people they’re not permitted to simply be honest about their views and values.
There are plenty of people that every person in the world would see as not living up to their own values and morals if everyone knew everything about everyone. There will always be people you can’t understand and have a difficult time communicating with because you’re coming from such different points of view. You both have the same right to live, and to be honest about your views and feelings and have you perceive the world.
That’s what tolerance is. It’s not a simple and easy thing because it means accepting that people who strongly believe things total opposite of what you strongly believe have the same right to exist and be honest that you do.
The people who break that for calling on others to be killed, or beaten, or chased out of society, those are the people displaying actual intolerance.
In other words, targeted groups simply have to accept they are second-class citizens. I functionally cannot see a difference between “being chased out of society” and what I’m describing.
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding you, I’m not sure why you’re talking about:
since that’s not what anyone is proposing.
How would some people saying they don’t like others be condemning anyone to be a second class citizen? Lots of people don’t like lots of other people. I’d have a hard time not wanting to beat the shit out of someone who kept insisting dogs were delicious. That seems horiffic. So I avoid those people.
Yes, it is. People keep conflating simply disliking the lifestyles of others with intolerance and criminal assault. That doesn’t work. People have the right to be honest about their own views, even if you disagree with those views.
Some people are deeply religious. You still have the right to debate against and make fun of religion, no matter how deeply demeaning those people find that to be. Likewise those people have the right to not listen to you try to insult something deeply personal to them. If you both fiercely disagree on the topic the best solution is simply not spending time with one another.
Neither person has the right to kill the other or proclaim that those who don’t hold to their personal beliefs are somehow inferior people. That’s preaching hate.