Hacker News Reader

> How do you get someone who believes women shouldn't have the right to vote to hang out with a feminist?

Well by forcing the feminist to accept she has to listen about her own inferiority without pushing back too much. And by her forcing her to accept inferior position in that social group.

> I've lost several friends who won't tolerate me defending "intolerant" people.

I mean, there is tolerating them and then there is defending them or defending harm they cause to others. I do not know what went on with your friends, but in my experience, tolerating sexists literally always means that I have to tolerate insulting things about myself whereas push back is seen as me being rude. (I live in a pretty sexist place, so that situation actually happens regularly and I push back when it seems to make sense. But I did noticed the dynamic.)

> I question if my tolerance is moral often. To be highly moral you probably need to have good intolerances which I'm not capable of.

Don’t forget the incredible subjectivity of morality. And defining the intolerable things that would constitute a “highly moral” person is extremely tricky because one could easily argue that tolerance is innately tied to morality.

I would love to learn more about philosophy because I’m unsure how the answer isn’t always “I don’t know.” Though maybe it is. The more I think about these things, the more I understand the underlying nuances, but invariably walk away thinking “I don’t know.” It’s frustrating but fun

All that you need to understand this gong show (Earth, 2023) can be found within philosophy...supplement it with some psychology/neuroscience/"mindfulness" and you're all set to have a much better and amusing perspective on The Big Show, including comment sections like this one.

> I question if my tolerance is moral often. To be highly moral you probably need to have good intolerances which I'm not capable of.

I don't know about that, there's this one Jewish guy who is taken to be largely morally right that summed up most morality with "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." and at another point said "Love one another". So I don't know if intolerance is really a good thing morally speaking.

I'm much like you, but its not just merely intolerant people (everyone is intolerant, racist, has some measure of bias), its only really highly intolerant people which I exclude.

The post 2012 era of people maximalist positions on every conceivable issue also makes it really have to have reasonable discussions with about difficult topics.

Trump made some of this harder, if for no other reason the people who I might have an ideological or philosophical disagreement with, simply wouldn't shut up about it.

I do vote however, I vote for the things I find desirable and people I find honorable. Being gay has made me very well aware of the fact that I cant ignore politics, I must be active and encourage others to do so.

> its only really highly intolerant people which I exclude.

Do you actively exclude them? I try to be their friends I just inevitably end up saying something that makes them mad.

> I do vote however, I vote for the things I find desirable and people I find honnorable.

I don't have well adjusted opinions on what the ideal society would look like for the average person.

For example, you're assuming that tolerating homosexuality is what society desires. While I agree with you that this should be what society desires because I don't see any real harm to homosexuality, the same could also be true of other things which you may not be in favour of.

I asked here recently what is wrong with teenage pregnancy and why are people so mean to those who want to be teenage mums? You could argue it's not in the child's best interest, but then neither is having poor parents or two dads. You could argue that the teen should have a chance at an education and career, but you could argue family is equally if not more important.

This is the problem with my extreme tolerance. I'm tolerant of things that 99.9% of people here would find problematic. Even on the gay-rights issue I question if the state should be allow enforce tolerance towards gay people with force. It seems intolerant to use force on business owner who morally disagrees with homosexuality and doesn't want to serve those they see as "evil". And while I could come up with arguments why we should use state force here I'm too tolerant of both positions to form a strong opinion on it myself. So I suppose my default position here would be closer to "let individuals discriminate against individuals" rather than the state taking either side.

I have too many anti-social views to be feel confident that me voting would be in the best interest of society. I'll argue in favour of homosexuality, but I'm not willing to vote and attempt to make the state force my views on others.

why are people so mean to those who want to be teenage mums

funny you should say that, i just had a similar argument over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37391008

to expand on what you say: there is no outgroup. there can't be an outgroup. we are all part of a community and we need to learn to get along with everyone in that community. even criminals. they need of course be appropriately punished and maybe put under surveillance to protect others, but they also need a chance at rehabilitation, and that can't happen if we place them in an outgroup. the same goes for everyone else who we think is harmful to others. we need to work with these people, and help them find their place.

what bothers me most is when groups who claim that they want to build a new society then go and exclude people they don't like or that don't like them. that was the trouble with communism for example. a social philosophy that wants to reach everyone must be able to integrate people that reject the philosophy itself. if it can't then it is not suitable for any community to adopt.

i am not sure if my trail of thought here makes sense, but the conclusion seems to be that any general social philosophy must be built on tolerance and openness and work to eliminate discrimination. anything else will result in tyranny against those that don't fit in.

or to put it differently, if we allow for anyone to be excluded from a community, that means we allow for someone to be socially isolated, which is a punishment that noone should have to suffer permanently.

Your opinions are perfectly valid, even if I might disagree - my belief firmly is that the world gets better with more participation - not less.

Particularly here in the states, if we could get 90% of the voters who show up for the general to show up in the primary, the results of elections would look different in general.

Even as a gay person, I'm generally anti-authoritarian to an extreme - I dont think you can legislate politeness or ethics, that said, my belief, quite firmly is if you're operating any kind of public accommodation, you waive certain rights by doing so. I cant dictate to individuals that they accept me, I can reasonably dictate that they tolerate my presence in the public sphere.

What this works out to is in my eyes if people operate a facility where the general public might dwell, sell to the general public, or employ people outside of close family, they have to follow some modicum of equality. If people dont want to do that, they dont have to do those things. I'll note that leads whole kinds of self employment wide open to folks too.

Rights are not absolutes either those to demand tolerance or to be intolerant, much of whats wrong with the states is people treating all rights as absolutes.

Your categories of friends are pretty basic. I’m sure if you tried to categorize them as say “honest” aka “courage to share opinions” they’d all fit in one category.

That may be true for you but I don’t think it generalizes to all autistic people. Anecdotally in US leftwing (like actually left not Democrat) political groups it’s very common for the most involved people to be 1. on the spectrum 2. have strong outgroups (eg basically every ML group hates other ML groups) even to the point of it including people nominally in agreement on 99.9% of issues 3. are willing to purity spiral and reject anybody in their outgroup.

What's an ML group here?

Marxist-Leninist, also colloquially known as “tankies”

You shouldn’t generalize about autistics on almost any topic, because they have a much wider range of behavior than the set of all neurotypical behaviors.