If everyone cherrypicks what they're going to be tolerant of, and declares people expressing ideas that they don't like to be violence, worthy of punching someone in the face, we're in for a bad time. Now is the time to amp up the tolerance, and be willing to give before you get. Almost everyone is capable of putting their various differences aside in a professional environment and get shit done. Honestly it seems like Google is going to have to add a violence component to their training: "It is never OK to punch someone in the face because of something they said."
I suspect Yonatan Zunger would argue that James Damore broke the peace by writing something that hurt people.
(Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in that case; a hurtful truth is still hurtful.)
That would be my first objection to this theory. If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response, as a diplomatic insult might lead to a shooting war.
If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response
Certainly some will act that way, but I don't think it necessarily follows. The definition he provides of tolerance rather matches my own intuition when it comes to the mundane form of "tolerance" that neighbors show to one another when putting up with each others quirks.
But in any case, my point is that Zunger's character is irrelevant to whether any particular idea he happens to espouse is good or not. We must judge the idea on its own merits. To judge the idea based on what we think of Zunger himself is to engage in an fallacy.
Indeed. I agree with the OP's definition of tolerance, and provisionally with the idea that uncivil behavior should be punished, but people definitely need to get some perspective when it comes to deciding what constitutes a violation of the peace.
Comments
If everyone cherrypicks what they're going to be tolerant of, and declares people expressing ideas that they don't like to be violence, worthy of punching someone in the face, we're in for a bad time. Now is the time to amp up the tolerance, and be willing to give before you get. Almost everyone is capable of putting their various differences aside in a professional environment and get shit done. Honestly it seems like Google is going to have to add a violence component to their training: "It is never OK to punch someone in the face because of something they said."
While we're considering that, it's worthing noting that the author did exactly that, writing about James Damore:
Should we accept lessons in tolerance from someone who appears to think violence is justified if someone holds a different opinion?
Yes, if their argument is sound.
Edit: of course, we may still ask if they are living up to such standards as they set for others.
I suspect Yonatan Zunger would argue that James Damore broke the peace by writing something that hurt people.
(Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in that case; a hurtful truth is still hurtful.)
That would be my first objection to this theory. If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response, as a diplomatic insult might lead to a shooting war.
Certainly some will act that way, but I don't think it necessarily follows. The definition he provides of tolerance rather matches my own intuition when it comes to the mundane form of "tolerance" that neighbors show to one another when putting up with each others quirks.
But in any case, my point is that Zunger's character is irrelevant to whether any particular idea he happens to espouse is good or not. We must judge the idea on its own merits. To judge the idea based on what we think of Zunger himself is to engage in an fallacy.
Indeed. I agree with the OP's definition of tolerance, and provisionally with the idea that uncivil behavior should be punished, but people definitely need to get some perspective when it comes to deciding what constitutes a violation of the peace.
Something I said about that previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571404
This is a very good article that goes into detail on what you mention:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...