The problem is that you can turn around every generality you have said to be supportive of what I presume you're against. For example, why wouldn't "un-inhibited self-expression" include someone getting a tattoo of a swastika? (preemptively responding to an argument that said tattoo would diminish more self expression than it itself is: this depends on the makeup of society, tautologically).
> I will continue to practice the version where I tolerate you until you are intolerant, at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you
Now apply that to my perspective here. I've judged that you're being intolerant. We're having that conversion, yet you're sticking to your intolerant viewpoint. So this means I no longer need to tolerate you, personally?
> if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing
Sure, but not in a good way. Framing it as a "treaty" implies a forceful ultimatum if it is broken. What you've actually created is a focal point of going after people that don't conform to your definition of tolerance.
> stop tolerating bigotry, but still extend the compassion and tolerance that I am able to to bigots.
This is another way of looking at it, closer to what I'm saying. Talking about "intolerance" in a vacuum doesn't really account for whether the magnitude is growing or diminishing - some tendency of de-escalation is required for things to settle out
The general consensus, at least around these parts, is that bigoted behavior is unacceptable. What's really under debate is when views (or even more tenuously, associations) are brought up by critics and reacted to as if they were actions. That tendency seems more akin to escalating aggression than resolving differences.
You can totally go get it. I won't welcome you back. You are no longer celebrating other people's self-expression, and so lose our celebration of yours.
> So this means I no longer need to tolerate you, personally?
Hmm... Yeah, seems reasonable. Here's a different approach:
It seems clear that most people are able to mostly tell when something intolerant is happening. So, look up the event chain: is this intolerance in response to intolerance, or is it response to something else?
> some tendency of de-escalation is required for things to settle out
Yes! Pretty sure the answer here is "forgiving tit-for-tat".
> are brought up by critics and reacted to as if they were actions
Which is (generally) really unfortunate :( I'd (generally) like to have tolerant discussions on views, but it's rare that people can do that. Where this generality can break is when the view is extreme enough that it undergoes a state change; as a friend puts it, "advocating genocide is not expressing an opinion"; although for me there's a step before that break that is "are you willing and able to discuss this as if you could be wrong."
That link claims to be about tolerance, yet leads with a picture of someone holding a bat menacingly but wearing a uniform that appeals to your political taste.
Sorry, no, that is not tolerance. Rather it is political violence. Political violence may be justifiable, but needs to be argued for on its own merits - not couched as an exception to "tolerance".
> You can totally go get [a swastika tattoo]. I won't welcome you back.
I was examining your adherence to your statement that "un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance". You are now saying that you will discourage people from expressing themselves in ways you do not agree with. You can't have it both ways.
Apparently that lofty generality was just serving as a dog whistle, to be ignored for those whom you disagree with. Furthermore, you took my hypothetical and responded directly in terms of me, as if I am some "other" that is personally interested in getting a racist tattoo.
> It seems clear that most people are able to mostly tell when something intolerant is happening
Much of what one political team considers "activism" is perceived as intolerance by the other team, so where does that end up? Setting subjective feelings as a standard practically guarantees herd behavior.
> Yes! Pretty sure the answer here is "forgiving tit-for-tat".
And yet you have continued phrasing things in terms of ultimatums, where your judgment of someone's actions is justification to write them off in a larger way. Even if you yourself deescalate in your own personal interactions, what you've written directly supports escalation.
I stand by my original comment. You, right here, are fanning the flames of intolerance.
Person A is being intolerant. They are breaking the terms of the notional peace treaty; the consequence of that is losing the right to be tolerated.
Person B is OK because Person A has lost the right to be tolerated. They are not breaking the notional treaty.
Person B is not OK because Person B has not lost the right to be tolerated. They are breaking the notional treaty.
As for the rest of what you're saying...
Yeah, I can see how that bat picture is off-putting. I don't always notice those kinds of undercurrents. Thanks for pointing it out!
> discourage people from expressing themselves in ways you do not agree with
You can, if your differentiator is along different axis. See the Person A/B/C example above.
> Furthermore
Thanks for expressing that you're picking this up. That's not something I'm putting down, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.
> perceived as intolerance
Yep. I don't yet have a way to address this en masse, although talking to individuals seems to work.
> Setting subjective feelings as a measure
...That seems appropriate? But you're right about the failure mode. I'd then say the issue isn't using this sensor we've all got, but in directly reacting to the results of that sensor. If your box is showing high CPU usage, and all you do is up the CPU...
> I stand by my original comment.
You do you, and I value that you're expressing what you're picking up. It's not what I'm putting down.
Except very few people are saying "Let's kill all of Group B", especially in 2019, at Google, in San Francisco. But sure, if you want to act on your "intolerance" for that specific flavor of intolerance, then please go to eg Indiana and protest the actual KKK.
Rather what "Person A" is likely to have said is something civil that clashes with the dominant political team's reality distortion field. Rather than having to address the substance, those who disagree feign highly personal reactions as if a minority viewpoint is that "kill all" mortal threat, effectively resorting to the age old monkey status games for silencing dissent.
Person A: B raped a girl, so B doesn't tolerate women!
Person B: I did not!
Person C: I don't tolerate person B.
Person B's Friends: I don't tolerate person C since they broke the tolerance contract, B hasn't done anything.
Person C's friends: I don't tolerate B's friends since they broke the tolerance contract by not tolerating A.
Does this sound familiar? It was the start of the Tulsa massacre. If you say that "intolerance of intolerance" is a good thing then I take it that you think that the Tulsa massacre was warranted, since they were just intolerant of intolerant people right?
Edit: Or in the case of for example Damore:
Person A: There are inherent differences between group A and group B, so likely not all differences we see between them are due to discrimination.
Person B: I don't tolerate A's intolerance, he is clearly bigoted and thus broke the contract!
Person C: I don't tolerate B's intolerance, A might be misguided but didn't really show intolerance.
A, B and C now starts a verbal war causing several people to get fired on both sides before it calms down.
Your first situation is not identifiable to me as anything like my described situation. I do not see how you could think the two are examples of the same thing. Your narrative also does not appear coherent to me.
The Damore example is much better. I spent a long time going down that rabbit hole, and my conclusion is that he had a number of things that should have been considered and were not, in themselves, problematic, and he also had a number of things to say that were problematic, and he said many (but not all) of those things in ways that were problematic. The ensuing cultural conversation did the usual unfortunate thing, and devolve into black/white tribalism.
This is why I go first for a conversation with the Person As before deciding on courses of action.
> I will continue to practice the version where I tolerate you until you are intolerant, at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you
Now apply that to my perspective here. I've judged that you're being intolerant. We're having that conversion, yet you're sticking to your intolerant viewpoint. So this means I no longer need to tolerate you, personally?
> if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing
Sure, but not in a good way. Framing it as a "treaty" implies a forceful ultimatum if it is broken. What you've actually created is a focal point of going after people that don't conform to your definition of tolerance.
> stop tolerating bigotry, but still extend the compassion and tolerance that I am able to to bigots.
This is another way of looking at it, closer to what I'm saying. Talking about "intolerance" in a vacuum doesn't really account for whether the magnitude is growing or diminishing - some tendency of de-escalation is required for things to settle out
The general consensus, at least around these parts, is that bigoted behavior is unacceptable. What's really under debate is when views (or even more tenuously, associations) are brought up by critics and reacted to as if they were actions. That tendency seems more akin to escalating aggression than resolving differences.