Hacker News Reader

Comment by _qbjt | Hacker News Reader

Ironically, bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". I'm not defending Trump but it's fairly obvious to any non-partisan that the left wing is just as guilty of this.

View on HN

Call me when your American Left Wing creates a system where Christians, Republicans and Libertarians are forbidden to dine in restaurants because of their identity, or are prevented from using restrooms, or are afraid to call the police should they be victims of crime, because they expect that the police will either make things worse or at best not take their experience seriously.

"just as guilty" is a false equivalence. The Left has much to answer for certainly; but the claim that there is somehow comparable bigotry in both sides of the political spectrum is not remotely credible.

Bigotry is a state of mind, not a manifestation. I'm not arguing against the existence and dominance of a WASP authoritarian power structure. My point is that accusing someone of being a "bigot" without providing a valid argument for what constitutes that label is no more compelling than any other ad-hominem. All it does is reduce social justice to an empty virtue signaling buzzword that fails to evoke the struggle and pain behind those victims of discrimination that you fight to protect. You will never get your message across to Trump supporters if you continue to lump them all into a basket of deplorables that is beneath contempt and not even worth a thoughtful interaction. Modern liberals, particularly the "social justice warriors", aren't helping progressive causes with their dogmatic approach to political discourse. They could all benefit from reading Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power [1].

Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam met with the KKK in 1961 despite mutual hostility that would never be ameliorated [2]. In 2016, your entire career can be ruined simply for holding the "wrong" opinion. Boy how things have changed.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene/dp/014028...

[2] http://www.vice.com/read/when-malcolm-x-met-the-nazis-000062...

For decades the strongest core of such policies you're describing was the southern Democrat.

Yes, but that was before the realignment when the racist white southern conservative faction of the Democratic Party, that had been it's core prior to the New Deal Coalition, abandoned the party over Johnson's support of civil rights and became the base of the Republican Party.

Has nothing to do with the Left Wing.

I'm aware of that - but if we have to look over 50 years in the past to try to back up the claim that "the left and right are equally bigotted", then we should really just admit that claim doesn't have a factual basis at the time it was made.

So by your line of reasoning, we should feel bad because we don't tolerate neo-Nazis?

Difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".

"hold(s) different opinions from oneself" isn't the only characteristic of Nazis, they have other attributes which do justify not tolerating them.

But yes, if it wasn't those attributes, you could still "tolerate" them, in the sense of allowing their opinions to be heard. You don't have to agree. You can even explicitly argue with them.

That is the classic definition, but the liberal definition of "bigotry" is more like "intolerance/hostility/oppression to those who have different skin/gender/lifestyles/culture/etc (all the protected class stuff)"

Look, it's not rocket science:

    Tolerant of   |   Tolerance | Yes
    Intolerant of |   Tolerance | No
    Tolerant of   | Intolerance | No
    Intolerant of | Intolerance | Yes

It's a little nicer as a 2x2 table, but whatever.

"hold different opinions from oneself" is subjectively tolerance/intolerance. This table exploits word games, because the first column is "in/tolerant to hearing the opions of", and the second is "holds opinions I believe to be exclusive to a special sub-community of society".

You cannot correctly come to a decision about the latter, without listening, which requires the former.

You are reading into this big league.

Are you familiar with "point-free style"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_programming) The above crude table should be read as given: point-free. I don't care about the subject of [in]tolerance even slightly (opinions, smells, beliefs, quasi-scientific theories, what-have-you).

If you are tolerant I will tolerate you, if you are intolerant go screw.

"It's so simple!"

> If you are tolerant I will tolerate you, if you are intolerant go screw.

Of course the subject is relevant. "if you are intolerant go screw" - does that mean you are intolerant?

Except that to me racism is not a political view neither climate change.

racism and views on climate change are opinions, what else could they be? climate change is a complex and speculative topic that no one understands completely. no one has a climatechangeometer.

"The fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com