"That's a perfectly valid choice. In some cases, it's a completely correct choice. But that's not the tradeoff that I want to make."
The problem is that it's used too often to shun or control people that don't agree with a political ideology. A good example of this is the Mozilla CEO.
An open and "accepting" community should also accept people they might not agree with..otherwise you should't call yourself open, accepting, or inclusive.
> An open and "accepting" community should also accept people they might not agree with..otherwise you should't call yourself open, accepting, or inclusive.
Being "accepting" does not imply being accepting of those who are themselves intolerant, and indeed the meaning and value of liberalism dissolves into something toothless and even dangerous when interpreted that way.
If the Russel's paradox aspect of this you bugs you, then label the position "accepting of all other beliefs except those which are themselves intolerant." In practice, this is what most liberals, even die-hard ones, subscribe to.
Nah, I think that you've still got to accept and engage with people who are intolerant of others--again, you yourself are a member of that group.
It's not usually a big deal if you are interacting in a strictly professional capacity: if they let their bigotry get in the way of good business and engineering and teamwork, you can drop them on those merits alone irrespective of their reasons for being subpar engineers or businessmen.
The problem is that it's used too often to shun or control people that don't agree with a political ideology. A good example of this is the Mozilla CEO.
An open and "accepting" community should also accept people they might not agree with..otherwise you should't call yourself open, accepting, or inclusive.