Tofu GolemMay 25
Same.
Show threadBoyd Stephen Smith Jr.May 25

@tofugolem

But, we vilify people for having discussions with the "right". There was a call to fediblock an entire instance because one of their moderators wrote something on an entirely different site.

If you are willing to have dinner with a Nazi, that makes you a Nazi, right? No matter what you believe or how you behave.

At the end of the day, you will be excluded for who you include, it is unavoidable. But, you might not be included for who you exclude -- but if being included is something you want, excluding "the right" people might get you there.

Show threadTofu GolemMay 25

@BoydStephenSmithJr
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
1 × -1 = -1

Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance
-1 × -1 = 1

Show threadBoyd Stephen Smith Jr.May 26
@tofugolem So, you would prefer to be included because of the people you exclude (the "intolerant")?
Show threadTofu GolemMay 26

@BoydStephenSmithJr
And here we go. The part where you claim that racists are the real victims here.

What part of my previous post did you fail to grasp?

Inclusion CANNOT include those who are intolerant. If you do, you become intolerant yourself. This is not a contradiction; it is basic logic, and I explained why in the previous post that went straight over your head.

Show threadBoyd Stephen Smith Jr.May 26

@tofugolem I'm just claiming the picture in the OP can be taken either way. Everyone wants to exclude somebody, and people that try to include everybody get excluded *because* the include everybody.

I'm saying the image is a bad post, and a ambiguous sentiment if it has any meaning at all.

I agree that we cannot give political power to the intolerant and that we should strive to remove any political power they do have.

I think that they do still deserve human rights: food, shelter, health care, etc. Tho, some people do disagree with that. I think dehumanization is never okay; it's the tool of the oppressor.

Show threadMark Reid
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem So… it sounds like you’d prefer to be inclusive and disagreed with rather than exclusive and part of the oppressors?
May 26 at 8:37amToot!
Show threadMark ReidMay 26

@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem I’m being a little glib here but I don’t mean to be antagonistic.

I’m guessing that, like me, you have something of a math background and tend to look for “edge cases” in statements and the one here seems very sweeping so you’re looking for a counter-example to “disprove” it.

However, having a preference is not that strong a statement and all the sign is saying, essentially, is “I prefer to be inclusive rather than exclusive” which isn’t vague or problematic IMO.

Show threadBoyd Stephen Smith Jr.May 26

@mdreid @tofugolem I'm saying the choice isn't binary, and the wording on the sign implies it is. You are going to experience some of both, and picking more of one just guarantees more of the other, too.

I think that "the left" tends to exclude people that could be converted, while "the right" tends to include and convert people and then continue oppressing them. (... to the extent either side acts a monolith, which is very limited.)

I strive to be personally more inclusive than any group I associate with. But, if the group events have exclusions, I will honor and not subvert them. I recognize that some people / organizations have exclusions for safety and security reasons.

Show threadBernie Isn't In Epstein FilesMay 26
@BoydStephenSmithJr @mdreid @tofugolem I think what's missing in this discussion is that tolerance and inclusion don't mean the same thing, and neither do exclusion and intolerance. This isn't being pedantic. Every study I've ever read on the topic says that telling your racist uncle he's an idiot and his beliefs are abhorrent will lead to him staying the same or getting better, while socially excluding him leads to him making friends that are even worse who will radicalize him.
Show threadBernie Isn't In Epstein FilesMay 26
@BoydStephenSmithJr @mdreid @tofugolem This is why the attitude of "don't have anything to do with racists" of the last few decades hasn't actually led to the era of tolerance and equity that Popper would have predicted.
Show threadMark ReidMay 26

@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem Language is imprecise so your interpretation could be different than mine but, personally I don’t see how the wording on the sign implies a binary.

I’d rather eat a banana than an apple but I’m happy to eat either.

Show threadBoyd Stephen Smith Jr.May 28

@mdreid @tofugolem There, the verb is shared, so the assumption is that you will (in this case) eat something. It's also in active voice rather than passive voice, which lets you have the choice -- not whatever will be performing the verb. The original form doesn't share verb and the choices are in passive voice.

But, yes, there is some ambiguity with "rather" in English. It has many of the some uses as "or", which can mean "exactly one of these choices", can mean "at least one of these choices" (like in Logic), and often just means "make some choice (and here's some possible options)".

Show threadMark ReidMay 28

@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem I’m not going to disagree with the points about English that you are raising but I feel like we are way down in the weeds of what (to me at least) was a fairly unproblematic and unambiguous statement about supporting inclusivity.

If we are having to litigate every word choice in the sign I think we will enter “overexplaining the joke” territory, which is never fun. So I think I’ll leave this discussion here – you are free to not agree with me. I don’t mind.

Show threadTofu GolemMay 28

@mdreid @BoydStephenSmithJr
That's exactly the problem. It's an unambiguous statement about people who are unambiguously immoral.

Certain people are obviously going to have a problem with that.

Show threadTofu GolemMay 28

@BoydStephenSmithJr @mdreid
I have explained to you the bad assumptions required for your bad argument to work, and you just keep barrelling ahead proving how wrong you are again and again and again.

Thank you for the entertainment.