Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmeyer2k | Hacker News Reader

Gay/LGBTQ rights and tolerance in the workplace is way different than donating to Trump.

I understand if you don't think a company should support a political party, but LGBTQ/gay tolerance meetings don't fall into that category.

If you put this into the context of some other progressive social movement such as giving women equal opportunity to men, it makes more sense. A company would not be out of line giving seminars about gender equality in the workplace even though some people may disagree. It's not a partisan issue. It's about acceptance and tolerance.

View on HN

"tolerance" swings both ways. Unless you choose to be intolerant.

The majority of people who spout tolerance and acceptance at me are the least tolerant and acceptant of other beliefs.

That's an interesting point, however I disagree it's tolerance of one group that makes someone intolerant of another group. In other words, I don't think being tolerant of black people means I must be intolerant of white people.

Karl Popper wrote about this idea called the paradox of tolerance [0] asking if you should be tolerant of intolerance.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

"tolerant of intolerance"... Interesting concept. Who defines the intolerance?

Intolerance of anti-black people makes you intolerant,not tolerance of black people. That intolerance would be fine(I certainly don't tolerate anti-black people in my personal life) but I would want to make every effort to be professional and respectful towards a skinhead at work.

I would collaborate with my coworkers to get him fired.

In the end after a few dozen unrelated complaints about random different things their supervisor would be thinking about getting rid of them.

Same goes for a Trump supporter too?

No I work with trump supporters we just don't talk politics and many are just deeply misguided not terrible people.

I presume you would only complain about the workplace behaviour of this skinhead.

If your target skinhead kept all his skinhead behaviour out of the workplace, and only displayed respect and tolerance to his colleagues, would you still organise to get him fired?

To be clear skinhead is sort of ambiguous. I'm reading neonazi and I think you meant neonazi but people do actually use the term to mean other things it seems.

If you mean neonazi I would for no reason I can imagine tolerate them. Would you tolerate someone who hated and wanted to subjugate or murder some portion of your loved ones because they were polite at work so they could earn a living?

I do not intend to have a Philosophy 101-level debate here, but would like to say that some things are not morally ambiguous. It is fine and good to be disrespectful towards skinheads at work, on the bus, or anywhere else. It is not fine or good to be respectful towards skinheads. Someone who wishes violence against a class of people based on their race does not have a place in a well-functioning society for these beliefs to be openly tolerated and accepted.

Popper was wrong - or, perhaps, not specific enough. The paradox only arises when you tolerate intolerant actions. But it does not arise at all if you tolerate intolerant opinions - which is the relevant part in this particular case.

Yes I agree. This is a much better solution.

It doesn't tho.

If my co-worker is donating to Trump, and talking about kicking foreign workers out of America, they're literally talking about kicking ME out of the country. They're donating money to a politician who wants to make my life harder, and make my visa process less pleasant.

I can tolerate my co-worker all day, but if they're working to make my life less pleasant and workable, they're going to feel some chill.

Sorry you're eating alone conservatives, but you're working at a place with thousands of foreign co-workers, what did you think was going to happen?

Let's turn that around. In case it's not clear, these aren't my beliefs:

If my co-worker is opposing Trump, and talking about bringing more foreign workers to America, they're literally talking about lowering MY wages. They're donating money to a politician who wants to make my life harder, and make my work environment more competitive.

I can tolerate my co-worker all day, but if they're working to make my life less pleasant and workable, they're going to feel some chill.

Sorry you're eating alone immigrants, but you're working at a place with tens of thousands of native co-workers, what did you think was going to happen?

Here's why those are different: One is an abstract affect on your paycheck that may, or may not be real.

And the other is a definitive slight against my worth and my legitimacy as their co-worker.

Oh, I'd agree it's not quite as strong an argument. But it's not a slight on your worth - if anything it's saying you're worth enough to not want to compete against! Legitimacy, sure. I'd still rather people end up at least being exposed to opposing arguments, even if they aren't ones I'd make or agree with. And if it convinces someone that perhaps they're in a MAD situation instead of one where they're ensured a win, well... It's probably worth it.

Personally, I think that high-skill immigration is a very good thing for the country, and not a bad thing for the workers in the sectors they'd be joining. It's a globalized economy - competing with an engineer from Korea when they're 50 feet down the street isn't that far from competing with them while they're in Seoul.

> "tolerance" swings both ways.

It doesn't, which is the "paradox of tolerance".[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Thanks for this. "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance."

It seems to hinge on "rational argument" to base determination on whether tolerance is warranted, lest intolerance creep in. I wasn't able to discern the bar for "rational argument". Do you have some more info?

And yet people who make that argument are usually the most intolerant of anyone.

It hands people an excuse on a silver platter to exercise their bigotry.

People who have a moral excuse to engage in evil are almost always the most dangerous and evilest of the bunch.

It does. Popper's answer to the paradox of tolerance works perfectly well regardless of which side of the political spectrum you're on:

"I'm righteously intolerant of the political right's intolerance of my beliefs."

"Oh yeah? Well, I'm righteously intolerant of the political left's intolerance of my beliefs."

In the end, invoking the paradox is just a convenient fig leaf for those who want to justify their bad behavior.

(And that's completely ignoring the fact that Popper's answer to his paradox is not the only one, as the Wikipedia article itself mentions.)

I think this is an interesting read on the topic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com