Wait a minute, now Oscar is posting videos in between a wall of text?
Do you see what you have started, Lira? :o
Paradox Lost
I feel there's a useful proverb that bears relevance to this and no doubt similar discussions regarding the extent by which we plausibly entertain counter-intuitive and dissenting perspectives: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
I think we can meaningfully formulate an attitude 'tolerance' (assuming we understand tolerance, in this discussion, to be the providing of avenues for others to expatiate on their divergent viewpoints) relative to that which we can reasonably estimate, and accept, to be the truth, until such time as we have reason to question the accuracy of that estimate. I realize that this just prompts the question regarding the means by which we can estimate that our estimates are correct, and who is qualified to make such a determination in the first place, but I nevertheless feel that this is a sound and reliable premise to begin.
In any event, it would seem apparent that adopting an intolerant and hostile demeanor towards unorthodox and nonconformist viewpoints would have the counterproductive effect of further bolstering their stance, as it's often perceived as denying a vocal minority of an opportunity to advance their positions because the truth they carry poses a threat to the status quo, a threat that needs to be quashed and silenced as rapidly as possible. This winds up draping their worldview with a subversive characterization that tends to attract like minded people, or just people who are generally mistrusting of authority in the first place, until an entire movement develops around it.
It may very well be, then, that adopting an especially tolerant, accommodating, and openly interactive attitude towards opinions that we ought to dismiss is the most effective way by which we can mitigate the extent of their impact (assuming, of course, that these are wrong-headed viewpoints that deserve to be dismissed in the first place).
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
inb4woscar with Sagan citation.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
inb4woscar with Sagan citation.
"Useful proverb that bears relevance to this and no doubt similar discussions regarding the extent by which we plausibly entertain counter-intuitive and dissenting perspectives"/"There's a nifty quote by Carl Sagan": same thing.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
In any event, it would seem apparent that adopting an intolerant and hostile demeanor towards unorthodox and nonconformist viewpoints would have the counterproductive effect of further bolstering their stance, as it's often perceived as denying a vocal minority of an opportunity to advance their positions because the truth they carry poses a threat to the status quo, a threat that needs to be quashed and silenced as rapidly as possible. This winds up draping their worldview with a subversive characterization that tends to attract like minded people, or just people who are generally mistrusting of authority in the first place, until an entire movement develops around it.
in my experience (which is admittedly limited mostly to nutter forums) levels of intolerance or hostility have little impact on the capacity for idiots to congregate and attract other idiots. the minority idiot opinion is already bolstered by the fact that they're running against the "mainstream" viepoint(s) (ie your subversive characterisation), which gives them a feeling of superiority due to their "secret knowledge" and such feelings would exist with or without outside hostility. sure, some people see hostility from others as evidence that they're "onto something", but there's very little that doesn't reinforce the idiot opinion anyway.
since logic, evidence and critical thinking are useless against 99% of the nutters, i don't really see that abusive mockery does any harm (as they have always already made up their mind), and me if i don't enjoy it :)
Paradox Lost
This generally speaks more towards the scale and context by which we express tolerance and intolerance towards other points of view, something I'm a bit unclear on from the Lira's original post. If we're assuming a tolerant or intolerant stance within something as limited as a passing, inconsequential skirmish on some faceless forum, then I imagine you'd be correct when suggesting that both welcome and unwelcome attitudes are also inconsequential. If Lira is referring to something of a collective cultural attitude towards a dissenting minority, then I'd suspect it would be quite a bit different.
I also realize that I'm using descriptions like dissenting, counter-intuitive, nonconformist, and unorthodox interchangeably, here.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
If we're assuming a tolerant or intolerant stance within something as limited as a passing, inconsequential skirmish on some faceless forum, then I imagine you'd be correct when suggesting that both welcome and unwelcome attitudes are also inconsequential. If Lira is referring to something of a collective cultural attitude towards a dissenting minority, then I'd suspect it would be quite a bit different.
yeah, you could be right. im probably too pessimistic.
though i tend to think people should be punished for holding really poor opinions, and if collective cultural scorn is all that works, then so be it! most people that believe ridiculous, outlandish notions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are highly unlikely to change their mind regardless of how they are perceived or treated by people or society at large. sure, they might go shoot up a workplace but they probably had a higher chance of doing that anyway.
we marginalise people in so many different ways for all kinds of things, what's one more candidate?
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
I also realize that I'm using descriptions like dissenting, counter-intuitive, nonconformist, and unorthodox interchangeably, here.
yeah, they could be different or the same, depending on the topic. im really just referencing ideas that are obviously factually incorrect, and which we can be sure about (insofar as we can be sure about anything).
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, you could be right. im probably too pessimistic.
Crazy talk, man.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Crazy talk, man.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Crazy talk, man.
haha. its not my fault man continues to disappoint me!
Moral Hazard
I think I need to get a better handle on what exactly you mean by "tolerated" in order to give a firm opinion on this one. Generally, I think all beliefs need to be scrutinized and challenged; however, I wouldn't deny someone the right to believe even after scrutiny... is that tolerance? I wouldn't even suggest a person be denied the right to believe something others would consider dangerous; however, I would support preventing said person from being able to put those beliefs into action that has a demonstrably harmful impact on others. Personally, I would consider myself tolerant.
EgosXII
I think beliefs must be tolerated, as long as they can be explained.
If you can't adequately explain your belief, or your explanation boils down to "I SAID SO, SO ITS TRUE" then stfu.
No belief that can't stand up to criticism can be respected: If you have a left-field belief i think that's totally cool, AS LONG as you understand it, and can defend it against more accepted paradigms.
This goes for all beliefs too, not just religious, or metaphysical. If you can't explain the scienfitic theory you brag on about then don't claim to know it (as i said a lot of times)-- If you don't know something, just admit it. Like PKC said, if people are being idiots, i think they should have their faces rubbed in it :p
