Hi Shane, Let‘s dive into the philosophical and sociological discourse just for the fun of it. Those only interested in the question at hand might want to move on … . Strictly speaking I take your point that I should not have said “all aspects” but something like “also other aspects important to us besides this particular one”. My intention was to make a point as pointedly as I could (pun intended) and not start a philosophical discussion. More importantly I did not speak about tolerance but about inclusiveness. So I feel Popper’s paradox does not really apply. There is a plethora of recent work on the distinction, so this is left as an exercise. Do not expect to find consensus on the definitions though. On tolerance I advise to not stop at Popper’s contributions. Particularly Habermas has some useful thoughts here and his arguments are stringent enough to appeal to nerds like us; also his thoughts are more useful to apply in practice, at least for me personally, definitely at a younger age when I read him. Do not get distracted by Habermas often talking about tolerance in the religious context, the work is in fact more general than that. And here again there are two white men, one of them old, discussing the work of other white men. I should read more recent and diverse authors, yet I lack the energy; maybe next month. ;-) Best Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 29. Aug 2022, at 14:14, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Daniel,
On 29/08/2022 12.43, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Our community has to be inclusive in *all* respects.
Does it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Cheers,
-- Shane
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity