I am going to disagree with the idea that ‘being “intolerant of intolerance”’ is inherently inconsistent. The problem is with the word tolerance, which contains multiple meanings. I think that it is morally wrong to discriminate against people for things that they can’t change. Believing that someone of a different race can’t possibly be intelligent is a moral wrong. Furthermore, it is so indicative of stupidity that I do not wish to associate with such a person, if they are in a culture where theirs is the minority view.To put it another way, to preserve my time and energy, I am going to avoid dealing with people who have some traits, and one of these traits is racism. This does technically mean that I am “intolerant of intolerance.” However, given that you are Eliezer Yudkowsky and I am a random HS student, it is likely that you are correct. Could you explain to me why you believe that I am wrong, or how I misinterpreted that.
I think that it is morally wrong to discriminate against people for things that they can’t change. Believing that someone of a different race can’t possibly be intelligent is a moral wrong.
The second statement here doesn’t follow from the first. If intelligence is something that a person can’t change, then it follows that it’s morally wrong to discriminate against someone for being unintelligent. It doesn’t follow that it is morally wrong to believe that one factor a person cannot change (their race) can determine other factors that they cannot change, such as their intelligence.
Whether there are actually average inherent genetic differences in intelligence between races is still a matter of some debate (although the issue is so politically charged that it’s hard to get any effective unbiased research done, and attempting to do so can be dangerous for one’s reputation.) It’s certainly unlikely that any race exists that has negligible odds of any particular individual reaching an arbitrarily defined cutoff point for “intelligent” compared to other races, but this is an empirical matter which is to be determined on the basis of evidence, and moral considerations have no bearing on whether or not it’s true.
If one is intolerant of intolerance then one is just as intolerant as those that are claimed to be intolerant from which one should not tolerate oneself.
Not wishing to associate with someone is not indicative of being intolerant of them, though assuming they are not intelligent may be.
To make sure we are not arguing over words, Googling “tolerate” returns two definitions.
“1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.”
I am using the second, not the first. I don’t see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own, and should have examined their own beliefs, without a very significant reason to do so. This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.
Let’s stop talking about race since it may or may not be relevant and deal directly with IQ.
I don’t see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own,
Someone’s IQ is certainly not based on any conscious choice of their own. So your argument seems to imply that we should not be intolerant of people with low IQs.
This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.
On the other hand this argument works even better as an argument for avoiding interacting with, i.e., being intolerant of, people with low IQs.
So which is it, should we be intolerant of people with low IQs, or should we be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people with low IQs? Your argument seems to imply both.
I have not abandoned this. I am simply trying to rework my moral system such that it allows me to both choose whom I want to spend time with in a useful fashion while not being hypocritical in the process. I will get back to you with my results.
I am going to disagree with the idea that ‘being “intolerant of intolerance”’ is inherently inconsistent. The problem is with the word tolerance, which contains multiple meanings. I think that it is morally wrong to discriminate against people for things that they can’t change. Believing that someone of a different race can’t possibly be intelligent is a moral wrong. Furthermore, it is so indicative of stupidity that I do not wish to associate with such a person, if they are in a culture where theirs is the minority view.To put it another way, to preserve my time and energy, I am going to avoid dealing with people who have some traits, and one of these traits is racism. This does technically mean that I am “intolerant of intolerance.” However, given that you are Eliezer Yudkowsky and I am a random HS student, it is likely that you are correct. Could you explain to me why you believe that I am wrong, or how I misinterpreted that.
The second statement here doesn’t follow from the first. If intelligence is something that a person can’t change, then it follows that it’s morally wrong to discriminate against someone for being unintelligent. It doesn’t follow that it is morally wrong to believe that one factor a person cannot change (their race) can determine other factors that they cannot change, such as their intelligence.
Whether there are actually average inherent genetic differences in intelligence between races is still a matter of some debate (although the issue is so politically charged that it’s hard to get any effective unbiased research done, and attempting to do so can be dangerous for one’s reputation.) It’s certainly unlikely that any race exists that has negligible odds of any particular individual reaching an arbitrarily defined cutoff point for “intelligent” compared to other races, but this is an empirical matter which is to be determined on the basis of evidence, and moral considerations have no bearing on whether or not it’s true.
If one is intolerant of intolerance then one is just as intolerant as those that are claimed to be intolerant from which one should not tolerate oneself.
Not wishing to associate with someone is not indicative of being intolerant of them, though assuming they are not intelligent may be.
To make sure we are not arguing over words, Googling “tolerate” returns two definitions. “1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.”
I am using the second, not the first. I don’t see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own, and should have examined their own beliefs, without a very significant reason to do so. This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.
Let’s stop talking about race since it may or may not be relevant and deal directly with IQ.
Someone’s IQ is certainly not based on any conscious choice of their own. So your argument seems to imply that we should not be intolerant of people with low IQs.
On the other hand this argument works even better as an argument for avoiding interacting with, i.e., being intolerant of, people with low IQs.
So which is it, should we be intolerant of people with low IQs, or should we be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people with low IQs? Your argument seems to imply both.
I have not abandoned this. I am simply trying to rework my moral system such that it allows me to both choose whom I want to spend time with in a useful fashion while not being hypocritical in the process. I will get back to you with my results.