←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
wpietri ◴[] No.16407907[source]
> they feel people there are resistant to different social values and political ideologies

This is just bizarre to to me. I moved here from the Midwest, which I found stifling. There's a far greater variety of social values and political ideologies (not to mention backgrounds and interests) here than pretty much any place I've lived. The main hostility I see is to intolerance, but that's hardly surprising given SF's long, welcoming history and the paradox of tolerance. [1]

If I were to worry about any sort of uniformity, it wouldn't be political, but in startup culture. 20 years of success has created some very well-greased rails into which most innovation has to fit: bright young founders, seed round followed quickly by A and B rounds. That can be fine as far as it goes, but it has become so orthodox that I think we're not a great place for doing anything other than a plausible Next Big Thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

replies(4): >>16408525 #>>16408531 #>>16408989 #>>16410668 #
drovo9 ◴[] No.16410668[source]
<blockquote>welcoming history and the paradox of tolerance</blockquote>

The "paradox of tolerance" is only a paradox if you assume that society can determine objectively for its citizens what constitutes "tolerant" and "intolerant" behavior; such societies are by necessity totalitarian.

In a free society, there is no paradox of tolerance; in free societies, individuals make their own choices and judgments about each other, and there are many different, conflicting views about which choices are tolerant and which are intolerant.

replies(2): >>16410980 #>>16411172 #
1. wpietri ◴[] No.16411172[source]
I think objectivity is a red herring; there are useful subjectivities, good-enough heuristics. And I think your theoretical, "Gosh, what is tolerance anyway," waffle breaks down when you apply it to real examples.

Was early American society free for its time? Sure. Was it enormously intolerant? Yes. (Hint: black people were property because of their supposed inferiority. For similar reasons, white women were pretty close property themselves.) America has gotten somewhat better, but the Nadir [1], Jim Crow [2], redlining [3], white flight [4], and the Southern Strategy [5] make it clear that has only happened partially and with significant setbacks. The US right's recent hostility to GLBTQ rights and acceptance make it clear it's not just race.

Are some people going to argue that Nazis in favor of violent ethnic cleansing are good people and that one can't really say they're intolerant of the people they're willing to kill? Sure. Can we still come up with a useful-enough working definition of "tolerance" (and therefore the "paradox of tolerance") that will save lives? Definitely. Many countries have done this successfully, and suggesting they're totalitarian just doesn't fly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_of_American_race_relatio...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy