I've just watch your talk on #DevRel Conf (London), about this topic. I agree with you that our industry has to start to ask itself another questions.
Just one aside-topic thing : You mention about "Tolerance paradox" from Popper. Maybe I didn't get you , but IMHO your interpretation of Karl's Popper words in "Open Society and its enemies" lacks the full picture. I don't mean to correct you, just pointing out that this interpretation has been refuted many times. Here are 2 examples:
"Third, there is the paradox of drawing the limits, which concerns the rejection component. This paradox is inherent in the idea that toleration is a matter of reciprocity and that therefore those who are intolerant need not and cannot be tolerated, an idea we find in most of the classical texts on toleration. But even a brief look at those texts, and even more so at historical practice, shows that the slogan “no toleration of the intolerant” is not just vacuous but potentially dangerous, for the characterization of certain groups as intolerant is all too often itself a result of one-sidedness and intolerance. In a deconstructivist reading, this leads to a fatal conclusion for the concept of toleration (cf. Fish 1997): If toleration always implies a drawing of the limits against the intolerant and intolerable, and if every such drawing of a limit is itself a (more or less) intolerant, arbitrary act, toleration ends as soon it begins—as soon as it is defined by an arbitrary boundary between “us” and the “intolerant” and “intolerable.” This paradox can only be overcome if we distinguish between two notions of “intolerance” that the deconstructivist critique conflates: the intolerance of those who lie beyond the limits of toleration because they deny toleration as a norm in the first place, and the lack of tolerance of those who do not want to tolerate a denial of the norm. Tolerance can only be a virtue if this distinction can be made, and it presupposes that the limits of toleration can be drawn in a non-arbitrary, justifiable way."
30+ years of tech, retired from an identity intelligence company, now part-time with an insurance broker.
Dev community mod - mostly light gardening & weeding out spam :)
Late but thank you! This expresses a point that was brewing in my mind, and some other comments herein that ask 'what is morally right/wrong anyhow'? I feel we must address this larger philosophical question, maybe through organisations such as the UN (cf: the sustainable development goals), interpretation of the 'golden rule' or my preferred version (I am a Christian) - 'love one another'.. Don in his later post suggests Scanlon's Contractualism, which is appealing...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I've just watch your talk on #DevRel Conf (London), about this topic. I agree with you that our industry has to start to ask itself another questions.
Just one aside-topic thing : You mention about "Tolerance paradox" from Popper. Maybe I didn't get you , but IMHO your interpretation of Karl's Popper words in "Open Society and its enemies" lacks the full picture. I don't mean to correct you, just pointing out that this interpretation has been refuted many times. Here are 2 examples:
"Third, there is the paradox of drawing the limits, which concerns the rejection component. This paradox is inherent in the idea that toleration is a matter of reciprocity and that therefore those who are intolerant need not and cannot be tolerated, an idea we find in most of the classical texts on toleration. But even a brief look at those texts, and even more so at historical practice, shows that the slogan “no toleration of the intolerant” is not just vacuous but potentially dangerous, for the characterization of certain groups as intolerant is all too often itself a result of one-sidedness and intolerance. In a deconstructivist reading, this leads to a fatal conclusion for the concept of toleration (cf. Fish 1997): If toleration always implies a drawing of the limits against the intolerant and intolerable, and if every such drawing of a limit is itself a (more or less) intolerant, arbitrary act, toleration ends as soon it begins—as soon as it is defined by an arbitrary boundary between “us” and the “intolerant” and “intolerable.” This paradox can only be overcome if we distinguish between two notions of “intolerance” that the deconstructivist critique conflates: the intolerance of those who lie beyond the limits of toleration because they deny toleration as a norm in the first place, and the lack of tolerance of those who do not want to tolerate a denial of the norm. Tolerance can only be a virtue if this distinction can be made, and it presupposes that the limits of toleration can be drawn in a non-arbitrary, justifiable way."
Hope you can get this feedback as an invitation to dig in into more questions.
Have a nice day!
Late but thank you! This expresses a point that was brewing in my mind, and some other comments herein that ask 'what is morally right/wrong anyhow'? I feel we must address this larger philosophical question, maybe through organisations such as the UN (cf: the sustainable development goals), interpretation of the 'golden rule' or my preferred version (I am a Christian) - 'love one another'.. Don in his later post suggests Scanlon's Contractualism, which is appealing...