Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonahx | Hacker News Reader

Ah yes, the old "if you're truly tolerant you will even tolerate intolerance and hate" argument, a perennial favorite among bigots and those looking to distinguish themselves by their courageous adherence to "logic" in the face of social norms, but who have never been the target of intolerance themselves.

View on HN

It is disingenuous to equate a reluctance to change society's ancient definition of marriage with "intolerance and hate".

Not really, no. Hate may be problematic, intolerance certainly not.

That perspective fails to address the issue of whether LGBT individuals are entitled to equal rights under the law, regardless of what name is used (e.g., "marriage", "civil union", whatever).

Not to say that the name doesn't matter ("marriage" vs. "civil union"--separate but equal?), but there's definitely more going on here than just a semantic disagreement.

The guy was supposed to run Mozilla, not a government. Don't lose sight of the context.

Does donating to a political campaign now mean you are hateful and intolerant of the people on the opposing side of your campaign?

People are taking his actions out of context out of their own hatred for people with views different from theirs.

This wasn't like donating to a politician who you agree with one on issue, who happens to have other views that you might not. He donated to a campaign with a singular goal, opposing equal rights for gay people. Hatred isn't a word I would use, but it does suggest a level of disrespect and arrogance toward the other side.

Jonathan Rauch makes almost exactly this argument you are trying to dismiss out of hand, and as a writer who's been openly gay since 1991, I think he has probably been the target of not a little intolerance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rauch

Finding isolated in-group proponents of beliefs typically despised by that group is never hard (in fact, I'd argue that such proponents occur regularly but with low probability), so I don't find this argument compelling.

Also, the fact remains that the argument imo, no matter who is making it, is an exercise in word play and sophistry.

Obviously you're free to disagree with arguments like Rauch's, but calling his writing "word play and sophistry" just shows that you haven't actually examined it.

You said he "makes almost exactly this argument," referring to the one in my OP -- so my comments were in reference to that argument and not his work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com