Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanrebar | Hacker News Reader

> ...as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value...

I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other.

> It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things...

In popular usage, "tolerance" is slowly becoming synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration". But in reality, you just described real tolerance right here. It's a good balance because we can absolutely agree to disagree and be part of a healthy community anyway. Keeping "tolerance" as tolerance is the best recipe for actual diversity of identity and thought in my opinion.

EDIT: Clarified my phrasing a bit.

View on HN

> In popular usage, "tolerance" is slowly becoming synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration". But in reality, you just described real tolerance right here. It's a good balance because we can absolutely agree to disagree and be part of a healthy community anyway. Keeping "tolerance" as tolerance is the best recipe for actual diversity of identity and thought in my opinion.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

this was a good read, thanks for sharing

It feels like this new "tolerance" somehow connotates "without bias" instead of "despite bias", which opens an avenue for persecuting perceived or potential bias (by some reasoning from base moral values) as a thought crime. This makes anything less than complete moral alignment a cause for bias and therefore "intolerance".

Tolerance and persecution together in harmony.

On top of that, "without bias" seems to mean "with my bias".

> I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other.

Personally I'd agree with that, but analogous to being the employee of a company, it becomes a problem if off-topic distractions seep into the daily business, especially if these conflicts have a potential to escalate into the public view, and especially if the convictions in question are unethical.

I think tolerance, professionalism, and pragmatism all fit well together. Replacing tolerance with "tolerance"? The track record isn't strong.

I don't follow the caveat for unethical behavior. Do you expect the organization to align to your ethics? Everyone is unethical to someone. The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't.

> The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't.

Indeed, that's why I used the word ethics instead of morals ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com