Hacker News Reader

Comment by zkhalique | Hacker News Reader

The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance?

If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights.

However, if islamISTS or communISTS or nazISTS or anyone else decides to take advantage of a liberal society and attempt to overthrow it, systematically, shouldn't there be some way to prevent it?

I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas. Of course, the civil libertarian in me says that freedom of expression should be maximized. But I also realize that there are mind viruses out there that compete with liberalISM and despise it for one reason or another. The question is, how intolerant should we be of intolerance? In the United States, for instance, we have become very intolerant of racists and homophobes.

I am not talking about this particular incident.

View on HN

Liberalism is already very intolerant of intolerance. Sadly this intolerance-of-intolerance is very narrowly focused and its goal, if we are all honest, is to change society not defend it.

I could give examples of how we are letting our guard down to those who seek to destroy us... but I won't because I am a coward. I don't want to be hounded by a Twitter or Reddit lynch mod for being "intolerant" or "racist" (despite being neither). Freedom to express our views, when they disagree with the majority, has been successfully suppressed. In other words, Liberalism has won... but now what? How do we move forward? We are not in a good place.

Has our society ever really believed that Great Frenchman Voltaire's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (as written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall). I can't think of a time it has. The pendulum of society swings from tolerating one viewpoint to tolerating the opposing viewpoints.

I stay awake at night worrying about our civilization, not that it does me or anyone any good to do so.

Edit: A little off topic, but if major societal change in history interests you I highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. Wrath of the Khans (the story of Genghis Khan) is my favorite so far http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

Dan Carlin also has a political show, Common Sense with Dan Carlin. It's worth checking out, too. Even if you disagree with the guy I think his ideas deserve a hearing. http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/

> Has our society ever really believed

"Society" is a great mass of people with varying belief systems. Most of the cultural norms are dictated from above, not necessarily by populist consensus.

> Freedom to express our views, when they disagree with the majority, has been successfully suppressed.

Huh? Will you be jailed for expressing your views? Lose your job? End up homeless and destitute? Get beaten up by a pack of rowdy youths?

Freedom to express one's views doesn't mean that everyone else has to listen to them. If a Bible-thumper starts preaching in the middle of a music concert, should everyone stop and listen to respect his free speech rights? Is tossing him out of the concert oppressing his religious views?

> Most of the cultural norms are dictated from above, not necessarily by populist consensus.

Steven Pinker might not agree with you here. See his book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined' and the reference in it for some examples of cultural norm changes occurring from the bottom up.

Jonathan Haidt's formulation makes it simple, really. Liberalism prioritizes the moral themes of care and fairness. Other moral themes--loyalty, authority, purity-- must always defer to the first two (in a liberal society). But this is precisely what moral conservatives can not do. Harming or treating others less fairly is morally right for conservatives if it is done so based on loyalty (patriotism, religion, group identity), authority (religion, tradition), and/or purity (religion, sexual mores).

Tolerance as a concept is flawed. Why should you have to "tolerate" things? The very phrasing is combative. I shouldn't have to "tolerate", say, homosexuality any more than I have to "tolerate" the floral wallpaper at my neighbor's. It should simply be a non-issue. I've not yet met a guy I want to sleep with, but it's not like anyone's forcing me to do so. My "tolerance" is a non-entity and it's just odd to even discuss it.

To say you "tolerate" something implies you're against it, but you're gonna allow it to go on. Should I say I "tolerate" Justin Bieber? That'd be pretty arrogant of me to say. As much as I dislike his antics, I, as some random member of the public, should not be able to be in a position where I can be intolerant of him.

An enhanced focus on rationality, critical thinking, skepticism, rejection of magical thinking -- all these things will build inoculation against these particular shitty ideas.

Unfortunately, that also means dismissing religion, deriding modern politics, etc. But as a first start, getting rid of "freedom of religion", and instead focusing on freedom of {speech, expression, association, gathering, thought} wouldn't be bad. It'd cause people to think a bit more critically of what they mean by freedom of religion and so on.

You may not like the idea of tolerance being necessary, but the truth is that almost everybody is "against" things that they nevertheless don't actively oppose. It's just going to happen for any society where the population exceeds one person. Tolerance as a concept has its problems, but I think it is overall helpful.

It is helpful as an improvement, not as an ideal.

Would it be fair to say you are intolerant of religion then?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm against special casing things and promoting the idea we have to respect lies. Homeopathy is just as bad (though not as popular).

I'm neither tolerant nor intolerant of what religion people have, just like I don't care how they go about brushing their teeth. You wanna say a turtle made the world and you must always wear a hat, and that this is an undeniable truth and law if the universe? Great. So long as the government and society doesn't give special preference to that idea vs, say, flat-Earthers or geocentrists, everything's fine.

So basically you are intolerant.

You are fine if they do things "over there" but as soon as it has anything to do with you you are intolerant.

Everyone is like that - even people who call themself intolerant. You call yourself tolerant, but when push comes to shove you are actually not.

You should stop lying to yourself and actually look at your own thought process to at least be aware of it, even if you are unwilling (or unable) to change it.

As a communist, I'll give you my point of view. To reiterate: I am a communist, not a troll, and this is really what I think.

I think that "free speech" as meant by liberals is harmful. I don't believe that oppressive speech (i.e. homophobic, racist, fascist etc.) should come under the aegis of the liberal ideal of "free speech", at least not until a post-revolutionary society. People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. I'm sure if you look through the history of the Parisian murders you'd find a trail of exposure to extremist ideas.

>People take on the ideas to which they're exposed.

Children take on ideas to which they are exposed, adults evaluate ideas before accepting them. Suppressing opposing viewpoints is therefore treating me like a child.

I think you'd be surprised. I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks.

And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful. In my opinion, things like being against gay marriage, or being racist are objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate.

> "I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks."

What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things? Or for that matter, if we assume for the moment that one did cause the other, how can you be sure which caused which? Perhaps the FN has become more and more mainstream as a result of more and more French citizens drifting towards the right.

> "And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful."

I don't really understand why being an opposing viewpoint and being harmful are mutually exclusive to you. You do oppose their viewpoint (very strongly it seems), so it surely is an opposing viewpoint.

>What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things?

It's probably more that the growth of the FN is a result of people becoming "more and more reactionary".

I'd rather hear you engage in the debate (I'd definitely be on your side in opposing racism) than simply to ban some topics from being discussed at all. The topics will still be discussed, but only in underground cells of fanatics who will not then hear opposing points of view.

I happen to strenuously disagree with communism (perhaps because I have been studying Chinese since the Cultural Revolution, and Russian even earlier, so I have read a lot of communist literature over the decades) but I would try to be respectful and hear you out if you desired to convince me that my point of view is wrong and yours is correct. Hacker News isn't exactly the place for a debate about the rights and wrongs of communism, but I think the key principle is that everything has to open for discussion in a public place where adults can join in to debate differing points of view.

Everyone has their own different opinion on which policies and ideas are "objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate". Further, how can you even define terms like racism in ways that are not too broad or too narrow. The meaning of these things can change over time and context. For example debates about immigration, affirmative action etc.

Communism is "objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate."

Not to mention "completely harmful".

Usually things that are vaguely stated aren't great for delineating as "objectively wrong" or not, since the definition can stretch in all kinds of ways.

Come up with something you want to maximize, that most people will agree with, like human health, and find ways to quantify it. Then you can at least start to see which policies lead to which results.

I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation. Pervasive propaganda that appears to be factual can easily manipulate the conclusions of rational adults. Of course, laws that attempt to suppress disinformation are probably ineffective and incredibly liable to abuse outside of restricted domains.

> I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation.

Somebody has to decide what is classified as disinformation. If you have the government do it then whoever the people elect as a censor may make bad decisions. (This is historically what has happened.) If instead you have independent media outlets do it then you have the same problem. Citizens may choose the outlet that publishes disinformation.

The difference is that in the absence of censorship the choice is made by the individual. If 51% of people watch Fox News and Fox News reports disinformation, 51% of people are affected by the disinformation. If 51% of people elect a censor who prohibits everything but what is reported on Fox News then 100% of people are affected, which may lead to a feedback loop in subsequent elections.

It's not that you don't have anyone whose job it is to prevent disinformation from being reported. It's that the person whose job that legitimately belongs to is called a journalist, and you get to choose the ones you like.

Well, we don't need to given these ideas a platform, sure. But I'm convinced that reasonable arguments and education are our best bet. Trying to completely suppress problematic ideas only makes them more appealing, because the question arises why they are suppressed.

People take on the ideas to which they're exposed.

Do they? Where did the ideas come from in the first place, then, and how have they ever been rejected? I don't know enough about you personally to make any inferences in this case, but usually when a sentence like the above is spoken, it sounds like it was bowdlerized: the word "other" was clearly intended in front of the word "people."

If oppressive speech is to be suppressed--even in a post-revolutionary society--which platforms are to be policed? And with what resources? I'm reminded of John Milton's well-known metaphor, from "Areopagitica," of "that gallant man who thought to pound up the crows by shutting his park gate." To use another metaphor, ideas spread by every channel. Do you suppose we could dam them all?

I'd conjecture that people do, in fact, "take on ideas to which they're exposed". The proof is simple: if they didn't, marketing would never have come to be a multi-billion dollar industry.

That being said, this in no way implies that people are fated only to have the ideas to which they've been previously exposed or can't actively search out and take on new ideas.

This is no proof. You're assuming that the products and services marketed have little to no intrinsic or social value, and that the consumers do not engage with the marketing critically--on any level. Certainly we all know some people who seem to act as automatically as this, but I doubt I've ever met anyone who truly does.

You could say the exposure is necessary for the idea to be held. With marketing this is, of course, true. And in other aspects of life, certainly none of us comes into the world every morning with a blank slate of a mind. But would removing every expression of an idea, remove that idea? Perhaps in a generation's time? (It can't be done, but it's an interesting question to ask, all the same.) We do know that there was a time when certain hates--homophobia, for instance, to use an example from upthread--did not exist, at least not in a human mind. Yet they're here today. Did they require public fora?

I can be exposed to an idea or an advertisement and subsequently walk away from it, having rejected its worth or its relevance to me. Without having done so, I cannot claim any agency in my thinking. Whether this kind of agency is worth protecting is another question altogether. The liberal ideas of free speech assume that it is.

I assumed no such thing. I merely assumed that the power of subliminal or unconscious suggestion is more the aim of marketing than engagement with the rational/critical faculties of the customers in an attempt to meet their internally generated needs. In addition, that often the purpose of marketing is to induce consumption on an irrational basis rather than a rational one. The resulting "intrinsic/social value" would then have been manufactured by the marketing process rather than having arisen from reasoned value judgments or needs met by the product but individually arrived at by the customers. To see that activating these mechanisms is the purpose of marketing requires a simple survey of the history of marketing and marketing literature.

This, again, in no way precludes people from activating their rational faculties and rejecting those messages. But in those cases simple repeated exposure is often enough to win them over.

Your assumption seems to be that consumers, or at least the vast majority of them, critically engage with marketing material. Psychological literature definitively doesn't bare out such an optimistic conclusion. So such an argument seems to me at the very least scantly informed, but more than likely simply an apologia for a cognitive bias that is pro-marketing and pro-classical liberal notions of human agency.

I think the major issue here is the implication that people are incapable of not taking on ideas to which they've been exposed. If this were Slashdot I imagine this whole thread would be peppered with the word "sheeple."

So, the question is, who gets to decide which ideas are harmful?

The scientific method

Having read Charlie Hebdo quite a few times, I often disagreed with them, or found their stuff disgusting but it sure made one think. Pointing out to the obvious ridiculousness of people taking themselves too seriously.

In a way, it is a way to protect ourselves from oppressive speech or at least to have other people adhere to the oppressive speech.

Literally every single society of the past has considered certain types of speech to be harmful or banworthy.

I imagine you disagree with the vast majority of them (blasphemy laws, lèse-majesté laws, obscenity laws, etc.)

They all thought they were the good guys, that their actions were just and improved society and the people within it. Undoubtedly many of these people were far more intelligent and better educated than you are, yet the culture they lived in blinded them to faults in their thinking.

So my question is this: what kind of obscene narcissism gives you the idea that YOU are the one who finally figured out which stuff should REALLY be banned and which shouldn't? Is "matthieuh" really the endpoint of the history of ideas? Are YOU the man who sees clearly, who transcends his culture, where others could not?

Such lack of skepticism and self-doubt can only be the result of intense, willful ignorance.

The same narcissism that makes you believe that you are right?

Not all people value the same things. That we can't give up freedom for security is still just an idea. How much of western culture is really better than something else and just not because we're prosperous.

The difference between bobcostas55's "narcissism" and the communists, is that bobcostas55 is allowed to express his. Holy shit, do I really have to point explicitly to Egypt, Iran, China, Venezuela Russia and the old USSR to show examples of what happens when expression of dissenting thoughts are banned?

Freedom of thought IS right.

Too bad I got tired of sharing and explaining mine in this forum. None of those countries you mention are actually prosperous to a larger degree. Is really shouldn't be that hard making an effort to think outside of you own though pattern should it?

Homophobic, racist, etc speech should be just as allowed as speech claiming the world is flat and 100 yrs old. The goal should be to have a society reasonable enough that flawed reasoning doesn't take hold, and instead just elicits an eye roll.

As an Australian, when the former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard got up on stage a repeated the mantra "I am deeply offended by the leader of the opposition", referring to various things Tony Abbott had said, I suggested this was exactly the wrong approach for her to take and that she should have just rolled her eyes and laughed at him if she truly thought Tony is out of touch with the average Australia.

Not unpredictably I was shouted down by everyone in the room. Maybe this says something about the people I associate with. Perhaps.

If we disagree with someone why should we be offended? Wouldn't it be better to just say "I think that is a silly idea, lets move on", rather than heaping yet more attention on the opposing views.

I would possibly make an exception to my theorising above. When the marauding hordes are coming over the hill it might be time to dispense with the eye-rolling. It may be prudent to act prior to this occurring. I'm not convinced I know where we go from here.

You're right. Julia played the victim too much. If you're the elected leader of a country, even if you are the victim, you take the higher stance.

Being offended by Abbott, while a normal response, isn't something she should have mentioned. It makes the argument personal, and derails any possible logical argument.

Agreed. It's worth noting she wasn't elected Prime Minister, I mean not by the people. She got to that position via a leadership challenge, party politics.

I'm more or less a French leftist but I really despise the stance of this side about freedom of speech.

This is what is ironic with the Charlie Hebdo situation because France and left parties here don't support real freedom of speech, but they always say they do.

I think any idea should be allowed to be expressed and anything less is counter-productive in the end.

I like this Noam Chomsky quote :

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

This is a topic which has been discussed back and forth for quite a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

Personally I've found Karl Popper's writings on the subject to be particularly insightful and on the mark, but your milage may vary.

> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas

But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution? What if the attackers wanted to "stir the pot", to encourage violence against all Muslims as a way to legitimize their own role? "See how the infidels hate you? That's why we must continue our attacks".

In this sense, what does "disallowing violent revolutionary ideas" even mean? Attacking countries suspected of hosting Muslim terrorist groups? Interning suspects in illegal detention camps? Drone strikes? What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas?

What if this is not about an abstract principle of freedom of expression (or lack thereof) but about not doing precisely what the terrorists want?

>> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas

> But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution?.. What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas?

I think you and the OP are in violent agreement here.

The OP was asking if there other ways to combat "mind viruses".

Small groups of violent extremists have no chance to overthrow a modern democracy, with or without a surveillance/security state.

The effect of those attacks is, however, pernicious if we let it be so. They are an excuse for authoritarians and reactionaries to build a surveillance/security state. And if a nation drifts into oligopoly and a weak well-managed "democracy lite" the pantywaist Hobbesians will defend that situation by saying "but but but... terrorism!"

The "mind viruses" should be fought with "mind antibiotics", not by killing the host. The idea that "thought viruses" will somehow spread without limits (in a liberal society) is a very elitist one, and there is no evidence for that.

The trouble is that whenever I have the opportunity to deliver "mind antibiotics", I'm delivering it to someone who doesn't really need it. And the ones who need it aren't likely to listen to me.

So, do you have an example of how these "mind antibiotics" work? I am seriously interested. This is a great idea, but how to execute it is a huge mystery to me.

The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth. Its taste is unmistakeable, but it doesn't always go down easy. For example, learn evolutionary biology, and then evaluate the bipedal ape Homo sapiens as you would any other species. You will immediately find yourself very far off the political map. On the other hand, you will also be inoculated against the absurd shibboleths of all those who deny the truth about human nature—which nowadays is virtually everyone who matters.

> The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth.

Please tell me you are aware of the irony in what you say?

How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not? Those people you deride are quite sure that when they know is true, and they think you are the one with the lies.

How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not?

Some people have a knack for it, but even then it takes practice. The tools are logic, reason, and evidence. Does that sound trite? It should. But we live in a world where, e.g., a straightforward application of evolutionary biology to H. sapiens immediately yields conclusions which, if you expressed them in an American workplace, would compel your employer to reprimand or fire you. When reporting the results of logic, reason, and evidence can get you fired, the trite becomes the profound.

Those people you deride

I derided no one. Calling absurd beliefs absurd isn't derision.

are quite sure that when they know is true

You assume a false symmetry. They are mistaken. I know this the same way I know that creationists are mistaken. Creationists may sincerely believe they are right, but it's not ironic to observe their error.

You are still young I guess. You will mature.

Just a little thought for you: Imagine you were born 300 years ago. Would you be as sure about yourself as you are now?

Of course you would be. You would be wrong, but you would be absolutely certain you were right.

As you mature you will realize the world is not as simple as you think.

Knowing the truth is not possible.

You are acting like a creationist. No real scientist would talk like you do - they would be humbled by knowing just how often they were wrong in the past. They would only strive to learn, they would never be certain they own the truth.

What a rich combination of condescension and sophistry! You write as if having confidence on some subjects is the same as thinking you know the truth about them all. And you guess that those with the temerity to express the belief that, e.g., evolution is true (even when applied to H. sapiens!) are arrogant youths who don't yet understand that 300 years ago people believed lots of things that turned out to be wrong. No "real" scientist would talk that way, but don't worry, "you will mature."

Well. My confidence is born of study and reflection, not youthful arrogance. In fact, I am a middle-aged scientist (a real one!). I weight my degree of confidence according to my understanding of the evidence, reserving judgment when the evidence is insufficient to justify a strong conclusion. I'd guess you strive to do the same. Indeed, I'd bet you're confident that evolution is right, and you'd probably cut creationists even less slack than I would—which makes your "knowing the truth is not possible" pablum utterly disingenuous.

Depends on the level of intolerance. If some are intolerant of my existence itself, do I have option to tolerate them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com