I'm not saying I disagree with their politics, I just don't want to read it. But the same would apply even if I did disagree - you're just promoting further division.
"Promoting further division" sounds like a reasonable thing to strive to prevent, but I think the paradox of tolerance applies here.
For example, DHH was a brilliant programmer who created Rails. I say was, because now he is a self-admitted white nationalist. I no longer care about his technical work or opinions, because if he has ventured so off-course so as to convince himself that white nationalism is worth supporting, I must necessarily question his judgment on technical matters as well. To tolerate his white nationalism and continue to promote and condone his work would be helping to further the spread of white nationalism, which I find abhorrent and unacceptable in any form.
Trying to prevent further division is completely reasonable when you're talking about opinions like "we should have lower taxes" or "we should spend more money on schools." It is not reasonable when your political opponent literally wants to do genocide.
The trouble is, where do you draw those hard lines? I have many friends for whom pretty much any discussion of trans issues is tantamount to discussing whether genocide is ok. There is one set of acceptable viewpoints and anything else is "transphobic".
I'm not saying I disagree with their politics, I just don't want to read it. But the same would apply even if I did disagree - you're just promoting further division.
"Promoting further division" sounds like a reasonable thing to strive to prevent, but I think the paradox of tolerance applies here.
For example, DHH was a brilliant programmer who created Rails. I say was, because now he is a self-admitted white nationalist. I no longer care about his technical work or opinions, because if he has ventured so off-course so as to convince himself that white nationalism is worth supporting, I must necessarily question his judgment on technical matters as well. To tolerate his white nationalism and continue to promote and condone his work would be helping to further the spread of white nationalism, which I find abhorrent and unacceptable in any form.
Trying to prevent further division is completely reasonable when you're talking about opinions like "we should have lower taxes" or "we should spend more money on schools." It is not reasonable when your political opponent literally wants to do genocide.
The trouble is, where do you draw those hard lines? I have many friends for whom pretty much any discussion of trans issues is tantamount to discussing whether genocide is ok. There is one set of acceptable viewpoints and anything else is "transphobic".
1 reply →