Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.



So, the gay couple coming to the baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding are the intolerant ones because they are the first intolerant action in the chain? Because you know that will be how it will be spun.


Congratulations on the apt handle. Your argument is irrational because it ignores the fact that the baker committed the first intolerant act in the chain, not the gay couple.


It isn't irrational because every human being involved experiences a different intolerant act as their first intolerant act. The baker experiences the customer as committing the first intolerance to him. The customer experiences the baker as committing the first intolerance to him.

There is no global ordering of intolerant events. This is basically the CAP problem. Every node (or human) sees their own version of the database (or the world) unless all humans coordinate with all other humans (aka impossible).


How so? Nobody invited them into his bakery.


So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".


Absolutely: refusing to provide service to gays, when you provide the same services to other people just because they are not gay, is indeed literally intolerant, without your scare-quotes or any other qualification.

What's so hard for you to understand about that?

If you're trying to argue for some slippery weaselly nuanced non-standard definition of "intolerant" which excludes bigoted bakers that you just pulled out of your butt, remember that it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and also excuses gay couples for not tolerating homophobic bakers.

It's not my responsibility to provide you with the standard definitions of common English words, when you're obviously capable of googling them yourself, and obviously misunderstanding them on purpose, and obviously not arguing in good faith. Look it up on Wikipedia yourself.


The baker in your chosen example is very convenient in that they are clearly anti-gay. Consider the the real life examples of bakers who are allegedly happy to serve gay couples, but believe that baking a cake for a gay couple's wedding would be a speech act in which they do not wish to engage, or a hotel providing 'separate but equal' treatment to people of colour. These things strike me as problematic, but clearly were not obviously so to the legal system of the time.

I think you're likely to run into the general issue that people seldom phrase their motives so as to make themselves sound unreasonable or intolerant.


The baker's argument was that it wasn't the same service. They would have baked them a cake; but they didn't cakes with "jim and john's wedding" written on them, in the same way you wouldn't bake a cake with the 14 words on it, even if you'd bake a cake for Richard Spencer.


I don't bake cakes for Nazis, no matter how many words they want on it. Simple as that. Not even cupcakes. No nuances.

It's pretty obvious when the baker and their supporters start bending over backwards to make nuanced hypothetical situations and ridiculous unbelievable qualifications, that they aren't making good faith arguments. If their best and most honest argument is that their bible told them to be intolerant bigots, then that's their problem for choosing to take their marching orders from that particular bible, while choosing to do business in that particular state which bans discrimination. The fact that your bible tells you to do something illegal is certainly no excuse for stoning your wife to death or killing gays, either.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-bible...

So we should have the conversation in which everyone has to make the best arguments they can, instead of trying to go recursively meta with the Paradox of Tolerance, accusing the gays of being intolerant of the baker's intolerance. Simply judge them all on the merits of their best arguments and intellectual honesty and willingness to address valid counter-arguments.


I see you saying things like 'judge them by the merits of their arguments', and 'intellectual honesty'. But the problem is, I don't trust that you're intellectually honest. I don't think you actually do much logical evaluation when it comes to a case like this; you're already predisposed towards being on the side of the gay guys, and not liking the christians. Well, fine. But I don't believe that you're coming to your conclusions through reason and logic, as you claim to; my impression is that you're just declaring that the chain of evil obviously ends with the people you didn't like to begin with, and their arguments don't need to be refuted because they're not in good faith.

Meanwhile, it's alright for you to categorically refuse to give service to someone for another kind of social identity.

Fine... I just don't get the feeling I should rely on you as a source of 'good faith' arguments about this stuff. You seem to have a pretty big axe to grind.


The Supreme Court already judged the anti-gay-marriage bigots on the merits of their arguments, and they were found lacking. They brought their best arguments, and they weren't good enough. That is evidence that supports my intuition. If you have some profound new anti-gay argument that nobody's already heard countless times already, they why don't you lay it on us and change our minds?

And yes, regardless of your distrust and disbelief in me, I have already logically thought about it a lot. I'm just not writing out every step of my logical thought process right now, and I won't or dang will ding me. So you'll have to take my word that I'm smart enough to figure it out logically for myself. Even most children can come to the same conclusions as I did, if they haven't been indoctrinated to hate.

I don't owe the anti-gay-marriage bigots the respect of rehashing and yet again arguing against their tired old disproven arguments and desperate Gish Gallops. It boils down to the bible told them to be bigots. They have no better arguments.

That's why the baker case is such a great example of how to properly resolve the Paradox of Tolerance.


>The Supreme Court already judged the anti-gay-marriage bigots on the merits of their arguments, and they were found lacking.

That differs from what happened in reality. The Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in favor of Phillip's right to refuse to bake the gay couple a cake. It was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that found them to be discriminating. That ruling was overturned when brought in front of the Supreme Court.

>In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...


Can you explain how you are balancing the notion of freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech here?

It sounds to me like you're are arguing that those rights aren't worth protecting for the baker and you are choosing to protect the customer's right to ... what exactly? What "right" is being protected in your analysis?


You're entitled to your intolerance, as are we all.


Only as long as it's intolerance of real, non-contrived intolerance, which in this case it clearly is.

Intolerance of gays is real intolerance, because it can't be logically justified, and it's based on religious bigotry instead of any legitimate justification.

Contrived intolerance is the baker claiming other people are intolerant of the baker's real intolerance of gays. You're not entitled to that kind of intolerance.


Is it your opinion that "religious bigotry" is not protected by the Constitution?

How are you going to define that outside your preferred scenario of bigotry against gays? Do you intend to insist (by law) that Orthodox Jews, for example, work on Saturdays because that is more convenient for you and that that they are being intolerant of your beliefs for no rational reason?

What about Orthodox Jewish wedding photographer? Are they required to work for you on a Saturday or is it OK for them too refuse you service based on their religious beliefs?


There's a huge difference between discriminating against a day and a gay: you can discriminate against a day because it's Saturday, but you can't discriminating against a person because they're gay.

It's ok for Jews to be Saturday-intolerant, just as many Christians are Sunday-intolerant. Days don't have feelings or human rights. And there's not a long history of discrimination and institutionalized biases against Saturday, the way there are against gays.

Monday, maybe, but definitely not Saturday.


Your reformulation doesn't seem reasonable to me.

In both cases the vendor is refusing to conduct business with the customer due to religious beliefs. Why do you think it is OK for the customer to have to find a new photographer in one case but not a different baker in the other?

I really have a hard time with the idea that the government is expected to pick the "right" set of beliefs to back on what should just be a voluntary transaction. Either both parties agree to conduct business or they don't. I realize that a laissez faire approach to commerce is not what we have today but I would prefer it over asking the government to mediate. And I do realize that would allow people and businesses to discriminate, but that just represents a business opportunity for someone else.


In the case of the photographer, the customer isn't being shamed, shunned, and stigmatized. The government definitely has a role here and should intervene in such cases in order to ensure that businesses treat customers equally and respectably.


So it is your belief that the government has a role in preventing someone from being shamed, shunned, or stigmatized by other people?

Is is always important to remember that "has a role" really means "can use force to ensure compliance".


In the case of businesses, yes that’s my belief


We'll have to agree to disagree.

Just think about the way modern media companies constantly shame and stigmatize people. How are you going to even define when someone is "shamed" or "stigmatized"? Aren't there people who should be shamed and stigmatized?

This seems completely unworkable and guaranteed to make absolutely no one happy other than the lawyers making money off of all the frivolous legal disputes.


Yeah, you have a good point. My opinions are pretty recently formed on this area so I'm probably off-base, and it was interesting hearing your perspective. Fortunately I'm not a judge! :-)


> Only as long as it's intolerance of real, non-contrived intolerance...

And this is where it all falls down. Any belief system which conflicts with your own is a system which is expressing “intolerance” to your belief system.

The whole idea is a crock in my opinion, as a way for one person to scream down another because they are the one who is being intolerant.

There is a lot of hate in the world, and fighting words should be shut down clearly. But this “intolerance” argument is extremely weak the way I see it, as is used as a way to hate and threaten harm against people with a different belief system, a belief system which may not have anything to do with hating or physically harming people.


>And this is where it all falls down. Any belief system which conflicts with your own is a system which is expressing “intolerance” to your belief system.

Not true. Belief systems can conflict without calling for each other's destruction, or discrimination and cruelty against each other's followers.

But the ones that do call for that kind of behavior, like religion calls for discrimination against gays and cruelty towards women, don't have the right to complain about people who they discriminate against (and other non-bigoted allies) not tolerating their discrimination.


> ... discrimination and cruelty against each other's followers.

A belief system is--by definition--discrimination against contrary beliefs, and therefore, followers of those contrary beliefs. And one definition of "cruelty" (e.g. to women - by denying full and free access to abortions) might be the inverse of someone else's definition of "cruelty" (e.g. to unborn children - by aborting them).

Someone can presume that they hold the absolute claim to the "truth" of which side is cruel, and which side is intolerant, but as human beings we simply do not and cannot know the truth of the matter.

So the problem I have is, when faced with such a dilemma, calling for violence against someone in the name of being "intolerant to intolerance".


Is this confounded or bound up with things like fake news or bad science -- would I, if I owned a platform – call it π-Chan –be prohibited from banning users who espoused anti-vax ideas because I firmly believed they put society at risk (or whatever the justification may be)?

I would, on the one hand, be strongly supported by science, but on the other intolerant of others' who have differing points of view. Would I be allowed to run my platform the way I wanted? Whose rights would prevail in that case?


The question is "who do you want to be your consumers" here. Both choices are PR choices. Legally, you're allowed to do either ("neutral platform" and "moderated discourse forum" are both things that are legally allowed to exist in the US at least).

If you want to appease the free speech crowd, you let the anti-vaxers stay (Gratz, you're running a Chan!) If you want to appease the intelligent discourse crowd, you ban/moderate people who violate your TOS (Gratz, you're running something closer to Hacker News!)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea

And if you can´t see why the above applies, maybe you ought not to use the word "straightforward" anymore because you are clearly not qualified to do so.


Is that the ideological opposite of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone ?


kind of yea!


what if the "unprompted on someone else" is wrong?


Then you have a discussion about whether that is right or wrong, instead of having a discussion about how recursively meta you can go with "intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of ...".

Call it the "no recursion" rule.

Case in point:

The baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of gays. That is unjustified and wrong.

The gay couple who sues the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of intolerance. That is justified and right.

The baker is unjustified and wrong to complain about the gay couple's intolerance of his intolerance, because he was unjustifiably intolerant himself, first.


Ok, let me be facetious. Take the baker situation and push it to full overdrive.

Let's say the baker was a victim of sexual abuse and the client was asking to bake a cake rape-themed. (Not in support, you can suppose it was a replica for a documentary let's say). The baker refuses, the client sues, who is the first intolerant?

Another case, a client enter the shop of a muslim baker and asks for a depiction of Allah on a cake. Who is the first intolerant?

Maybe you have answer for all such situations, but how confident are you that a majority agrees in all cases?


I think both these cases are fundamentally different -- the baker can refuse to bake a certain type of cake, on the grounds of religious expression clashing with the cake he is making. However, it's different if he refuses service on the grounds of the type of people he is making the cake for.


and in the actual case the baker refused to write a message on the cake. he was fine with the clients and with the cake.

He only objected to a custom message defying his belief. There are good arguments on both sides. (my stance is sort of about scale as in if he had enough employees to delegate or he was the only cake-maker there)


Oh I was unaware of that. Alright I find that I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision after all!


Isn’t every choice the exclusion of the alternative?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: