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.
This isn’t an attempt to understand, it seems entirely disingenuous with ignoring everything I said to focus on one single thing and the response to it. I’ve explained that silencing people from sharing honest opinions simply because other people don’t like hearing them is literally inflicting the psychiatric harm on others you’re concerned with.
People disagree with you. People don’t like you. That’s a thing all humans need to learn to deal with. Regardless of who you are or what they dislike about you, there will always be people out there who feel that way. At the same time there are others you dislike based on their lifestyles, or beliefs, or values that don’t match your own.
That’s life. You have the right to live and express your beliefs and opinions, and so does everyone else. Even if they don’t like what you have to say, and even if you don’t like what they have to say.
Killing or forcibly silencing anyone who doesn’t share your own world view isn’t a sane solution to that. Accepting that not all people will like you and choosing to spend your time with those who do is.
I keep harping on about this point because to me, it’s the obvious logical inconsistency in your views, entirely based on real historical examples. Maybe I’m just too dense, but I still don’t understand how you resolve this inconsistency beyond “they just have to deal with it”.
I’ve explained that silencing people from sharing honest opinions simply because other people don’t like hearing them is literally inflicting the psychiatric harm on others you’re concerned with.
Have you seen concrete studies showing that these harms are anywhere near comparable? I can’t remember anything in that direction, and I’d be very surprised if it were true. Having 95% of society band together to exclude you is a completely different kind of harm, compared to not being allowed to exclude 5% of society.
To exclude you from what? Being liked by everyone? Where are you getting this 95% and 5%? It would suck if 95% of humanity decided they didn’t like you, but they have that right. You can’t force people to like you.
Of course making laws like no colored folk at this drinking fountain aren’t good. That’s relegating some people to second class citizens, which comes from preaching that some people are different and inferior. That’s not tolerance, it’s the first stage of intolerance.
But for people simply saying something like they don’t like some certain group of people for whatever their reason is? Those are just assholes. The world is full of them. If you don’t like extremely religious people and speak openly about that then they likely feel the same way about you. There will always be people in the world who don’t like you, and people you don’t like. That’s to be expected.
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.
I don’t know where you’re unclear about my example? I’ve explicitly mentioned how. Do you have specific questions or issues?
This isn’t an attempt to understand, it seems entirely disingenuous with ignoring everything I said to focus on one single thing and the response to it. I’ve explained that silencing people from sharing honest opinions simply because other people don’t like hearing them is literally inflicting the psychiatric harm on others you’re concerned with.
People disagree with you. People don’t like you. That’s a thing all humans need to learn to deal with. Regardless of who you are or what they dislike about you, there will always be people out there who feel that way. At the same time there are others you dislike based on their lifestyles, or beliefs, or values that don’t match your own.
That’s life. You have the right to live and express your beliefs and opinions, and so does everyone else. Even if they don’t like what you have to say, and even if you don’t like what they have to say.
Killing or forcibly silencing anyone who doesn’t share your own world view isn’t a sane solution to that. Accepting that not all people will like you and choosing to spend your time with those who do is.
I keep harping on about this point because to me, it’s the obvious logical inconsistency in your views, entirely based on real historical examples. Maybe I’m just too dense, but I still don’t understand how you resolve this inconsistency beyond “they just have to deal with it”.
Have you seen concrete studies showing that these harms are anywhere near comparable? I can’t remember anything in that direction, and I’d be very surprised if it were true. Having 95% of society band together to exclude you is a completely different kind of harm, compared to not being allowed to exclude 5% of society.
To exclude you from what? Being liked by everyone? Where are you getting this 95% and 5%? It would suck if 95% of humanity decided they didn’t like you, but they have that right. You can’t force people to like you.
Of course making laws like no colored folk at this drinking fountain aren’t good. That’s relegating some people to second class citizens, which comes from preaching that some people are different and inferior. That’s not tolerance, it’s the first stage of intolerance.
But for people simply saying something like they don’t like some certain group of people for whatever their reason is? Those are just assholes. The world is full of them. If you don’t like extremely religious people and speak openly about that then they likely feel the same way about you. There will always be people in the world who don’t like you, and people you don’t like. That’s to be expected.