Extra News Feed

The best essay I've seen on this "paradox" is by Yonatan Zunger: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637… An excerpt: > Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. Note the full essay is well worth reading.

This is the best explanation I've seen: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637… In answering your question, it's more about reciprocation: if you make it comfortable for people to be who they are, we'll make it comfortable for you to be who you are; or the inverse. Which does have a strong element of "who did it first", but that's resolvable by risking the other person defecting while you cooperate and if they do that, well, doesn't really matter who did it first because it's clear who wasn't up for trying. Picking out specific actions... I honestly don't know. We had a guy in one my communities get kicked out for doing this thing where he'd hear about someone's story about being a victim, and then retell that story in such a way that a) he was now that kind of victim and b) the original person now wasn't.

This article goes into a great breakdown of budget deficits by those in power, and it shows that Republicans are better at controlling spending. https://extranewsfeed.com/who-is-better-at-controlling-deficits-republ…

> especially his third point, in the following post on Medium: Relevant parts: > (3) And most seriously, the author does not appear to understand the consequences of what he wrote, either for others or himself. ... > These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in. I’m afraid that’s likely to remain a serious problem for you for a long time to come. But our company is committed to maintaining a good environment for all of its people, and if one person is determined to thwart that, the solution is pretty clear.[2] ... >[2] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

The “end state” is much more likely a North/Central American Confederation than any secession within the US. Maybe even South America, which would lead to a somewhat less US-centric Confederation. Four closely-related languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French) with a common history of Western European culture and colonialism against a backdrop of rich Indigenous cultures…that pretty much covers the whole of the Americas. That’s a pretty small hill to climb to achieve the integration of 700M+ people over two continents. NB (from HN search): The Texas secessionist sites have been linked to Russian interests. https://extranewsfeed.com/how-russia-created-the-most-popular-texas-se… And I believe the Silicon Valley guy who was pushing the Calexit movement actually moved to Russia. https://www.kqed.org/news/11217187/from-his-home-in-russia-calexit-lea… Basically, Eurasia is jealous of the Americas’s relative peace and prosperity. The best response I read to these sorts of posts (of which there have been quite a few over the last 10 years) was the comment that this was settled with the US Civil War…the bloodiest in US. And for the rest of the US, that’s basically the end of the story. The CalExit dynamics would probably, in the best case for those pushing it, go something like this: Uncle Sam: Sad to see you go. We’ve been through a lot. When we bought you less than 200 years ago from Mexico, you…

> There is a notion that Googles usefulness has made it a utility. This is a fantastic argument against Silicon Valley - that the institutions that it created have too much power. However, that is not the argument being made in this subthread. Having this argument requires consideration of the institutions that it replaced, and whether or not the concentration of so much market influence in a corporation is a good thing. That's the problem at hand, not the particular politics of such a corporation. > YouTube is targeting conservative ideas. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are perhaps an example of good censorship. At which point in the future will Google censor the next genocide? I am of the understanding that the problem Sandy Hook conspiracies is not their content, but their presentation - my understanding is that they libel, and accuse victims of the shooting of conspiracy and murder. This is, by many definitions, harassment, and is against the TOS. > The article I linked about Nazis are to explain the idea that censoring bad things can sometimes backfire. If we really want to go down that tangent, may I remind you that this strategy of dealing with Nazis backfired spectacularly in 1933? We allowed them to speak, and big surprise, that did not stop them from suppressing the speech of their opposition, as soon as they seized power. Not that anything else could be expected from a movement that is built on no foundation but violence. Tolerance is not a suicide…

Like you, I don't think it's an entirely trivial issue to figure out what should or shouldn't be defended. An article that tremendously helped me shape my thinking on this is "Tolerance is not a moral precept"[1] In a nutshell - tolerance is a mutual agreement, and the protections of tolerance only apply to those who would uphold those protections. If you deliberately step outside these bounds - "gay people are evil" clearly doesn't tolerate gay people - you have lost the right to be tolerated. I disagree with the ACLU on protecting neo-nazis on those grounds. They have positioned themselves outside of civil society, with the deliberate goal of destroying that society. Does that mean we should restrict neo nazi speech? I honestly don't know. I do believe we shouldn't protect it, and I do believe we should shun people who subscribe to those ideas, but does that mean we should make it illegal? It's a very tough question. It's not what I'm arguing, either. But I am arguing that Sam disingenuously conflates two things, and to make it more interesting would like to get rid of speech that harms his business interest while he's OK with speech that has provably caused physical harm over and over. He's unhappy with his ethics being questioned, and dresses it up in a free speech argument. That is what I dislike about this. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. The successful operation of a principle like "reasonableness" requires an intake filter to suss out whether people joining the department roughly agree on what it means. If someone doesn't agree with your definition of reasonableness, it becomes a bludgeon wielded by both sides that can't be affixed to a definitive state of the world and the winner will necessarily be side that can exert more political force. Element three is more concrete. "[3)] No one is special."This is the classic statement that all are equal before the law regardless of position in the department, which is the only way to grant popular legitimacy to rules. "[4)] Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I feel this rule is a symptom of the lax definition of reasonableness. The reason people become offended when someone accuses them of being unreasonable, is because the standard is so loosely defined that someone can (reasonably, ha!) believe themselves reasonable when others do not. I read an interesting article the other day where the author took a moral position and reasoned it through [0], showing how it was legally reasoned through in high profile situations. This kind of cooperative principle is…

Seems to me that the cited article is off on the wrong foot. Solution to this is "Tolerance is not a moral precept, it's a peace treaty". Link below. Quick search, this doesn't look like where this was originally published. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

If you perceive tolerance as a peace treaty rather than a moral precept, then the paradox of tolerance disappears. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637… You don't have to tolerate the intolerant, and the people running the app stores are free to make their choices of who they allow into the store. If you want to be associated with fascists and racists, that is up to you, but you will not be welcome in civilised places. You can always run your own app store which allows those groups.

This really is the rule, not the exception. Every time I've deigned to wade into conservative "free-speech" zones I've been booted out for ideological nonconformity. Tolerance is a peace treaty: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

It's only real if you believe that tolerance is some sort of moral absolute, demanding that you be tolerant even of the intolerant. It's not. Tolerance is more like a peace treaty. When someone breaks it, they are no longer protected by it. I've found this post[0] from a few years ago to be a good explanation. Once you look at tolerance this way, the paradox disappears. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

It's not a marketing page, really. I made it. Did you see my vlog? It's too bad it looks so pro... it looks like a real estate developer built it :) But Senator's Wiener's FAQ answers the question you ask: https://extranewsfeed.com/my-transit-density-bill-sb-827-answering-com… he says "First, most cities and towns don’t operate their own transit systems, given that transit agencies are typically separate from cities or regional in nature. Thus, very few cities even have the power to reduce transit service, even if they wanted to do so in order to avoid SB 827. Second, while communities could organize to fight new transit stations or to reduce bus service, let’s also be real: people already fight transit expansions in their neighborhoods."

We're working on it: https://extranewsfeed.com/my-transit-density-bill-sb-827-answering-com…

If by statistical pattern you mean that political enemies of Putin are statistically more likely to be assassinated. https://extranewsfeed.com/the-trail-of-dead-russians-da27ee4a2bdc Erovinkin in particular is generally considered a key source in the Steele dossier.

Whoops, I guess word games have proven that it's wrong to speak out against Nazis. /s Personally I like this page's description of the word tolerance, which solves this word game: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

w/r/t "hate towards the haters" (assuming by "haters" here you mean people literally waving a nazi flag, or more colloquially, "nazis"), you might find this essay on the paradox of tolerence interesting: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

This essay, from a former Google employee, touches on the themes that go to the heart of why supporters of this guy are flat-out wrong in their take on the situation. Tolerance is not a moral precept: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

I thought Yonatan Zunger's essay Tolerance is not a moral precept [1] -- linked off his response to the "manifesto" -- did a good job of addressing this scenario. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

The author's claims are not factual. The "biological" bases he asserts as fact are debunked, and not even recently. You say that we should engage with him, but there's nothing of substance there to engage with. So then, we shouldn't tolerate his breach of the "peace treaty" of tolerance. He stepped over a line, and should be socially stigmatized for it. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637…

As someone who's never worked for Google, I recognize the name Yonatan Zunger. - He's the guy who posted the bizarre and really popular conspiracy theory about the President of the United States secretly plotting a coup: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d… - He's the guy who posted this incredibly misleading, and astoundingly viral, tweet about children which ICE seized from their parents being missing and unaccounted for - https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/999827396046995456 - which lead people to believe they'd been ripped from their families and vanished, when they'd actually been reunited with family members who didn't want to be found. This was particularly irresponsible since the fix for this would literally be imprisoning more kids rather than reuniting them with their family members. - He's the guy who wrote a popular piece opposing the idea of tolerance: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d637… - I'm pretty sure I caught him posting other dubious misinformation and conspiracy theories too.

> Can you cite some sources there? this was in my inbox straight from medium staff pick, so I'm using this one I know having had a lot exposure: https://extranewsfeed.com/to-our-fellow-jews-in-the-united-states-in-i… "Any Jew, anywhere, who does not act to oppose President Donald Trump and his administration acts in favor of anti-Semitism" There ya go, this guy just associated non vocal Jews to Nazis, even if with a convoluted wording that avoided the label directly, but called them anti-semite, and I'm not gonna repeat the point of the Nazi 'spectrum' again, but you know where it's gonna go: once the real Nazi's have all been punched, the bar will lower and lower until you can scream racist at someone and have it ostracized, mediatically or otherwise. (ok this fall shorts of "all white man" but I guess you're smart enough to draw the parallels)