[ExI] India and the periodic table

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Ben,

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote:

>       As long as they don't interfere with me...
> 
> Daniel, that is precisely the problem. They will interfere with you, if they can.

That's the key here for me, if they can. Yes, maybe they can, maybe they
can't. If you (or I) structured our lives in such a way that they
cannot, then that's good, right? =)

> Asymmetrical tolerance doesn't work. You can be as tolerant as you like with a jihadist, an anti-choice proponent (I don't like to
> use the term 'pro-life' because that is colluding in their own propaganda. They are only 'pro' life that hasn't actually started yet,
> and are definitely 'anti' actual living people's freedom of choice) or the chinese communists, but they certainly won't be tolerant
> of you and your beliefs. A gay person, or an atheist, in Saudi Arabia can be as tolerant as they like towards the regime, the
> tolerance won't be reciprocated. Same with an accidentally-pregnant teenage girl in the american deep south, or a proponent of
> democracy in china.

When we are talking about interference, I view that as an attack, and I
am in favour of people being allowed to defend themselves. Attacking
others has nothing to do with culture, I would argue that it is in fact
the opposite, a lack of culture. But I think maybe that we could find a
better world here. I don't quite like culture since it is so vague.

> So with intolerant people, the only thing you can do is oppose them. Or give in to them. There is no neutrality.

I don't think I agree with "only thing". But in repelling and attack, it
means someone attacked you first, and of course, if you can and want,
you can defend yourself. There is neutrality as well. First of all, I do
not actively have to let the world know at every possible opportunity
what my views are and try to convert them.

So to give you an example, in the country side where I live from time to
time, there are nazis. We live happily side by side, although the
interaction between us is very limited. In fact, the interaction between
them and the village is very limited.

They are intolerant, I do not agree with their beliefs, but we live side
by side.

Now what I mean is that I could go to them and preach the gospel of
libertarianism and capitalism, and that would possibly start a chain of
events with negative outcomes.

So as far as they are concerned, I live my life and they life theirs,
and neither trys to convert the other.

Once there was a guy on the political left who did try to convert them,
or at least provocatively state his views and that started a vendetta
where one car was smashed and another car was burned, and eventually I
think, someone did a bit of prison time. He choose the path of
opposition, and both paid the price.

So horses for courses I guess, moderated by the fact that I do not know
where you live and what you have to put up with in your daily life.

> Imagine a couple of scenarios:
> 
> A lesbian atheist in Saudia Arabia (or Iran)
> 
> What are their choices? How can they live the lives they want to live?

To move somewhere else, find a community that supports their values,
travel to a state that supports abortion, find an underground doctors
that performs abortion?

> For most of the people in this world, "as long as they don't interfere with me..." isn't a possibility.

The world is not a perfect place, but I don't think "most" applies here.
For many people "non-interference/neutrality" is a very good option and
probably for more people than you think.

But yes, for many it is not an option, but that is not due to culture,
but due to mental sickness and criminals, and mental sickness and
criminals is not what I mean by culture.

Best regards, 
Daniel