Thursday, March 23, 2023

Paradox of tolerance

The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it. The intolerant…have broken the terms of the contract…and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated. Commentary: Philosophically and rhetorically this has completely solved the paradox of tolerance.

You could also say that "tolerance" is not just one item that the social contract may contain, nor even the key item, but is the contract itself. "Tolerance" may be the mechanism by which a "social contract" functions. If you aren't tolerant, you've stopped following the contract. It isn't only that other people might stop following it vindictively because of your behavior; it's that there is no way they can function tolerantly if they're the only ones doing it.

Karl Popper on the Paradox of Tolerance. Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies. Graphic by Pictonline.com Cartoon: Unlimited tolerance can lead to the extinction of tolerance. The tolerant ones end up being destroyed, and tolerance with them. Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.

The intolerant will begin by criminalizing others. Then they'll say: If you criminalize me, you could criminalize anyone. Fact-check: The intolerant person has already criminalized others. That's enabled by power and a rejection of the social contract. Reequilibrating the power dynamic and reinforcing the social contract is not going to broadly criminalize everyone; it will adjust the problem of large numbers of people being unfairly crimnalized, because it identifies the actual criminal.

The intolerant will also blame you for standing up to them in any way.

Nathan Kalmoe (he/him) ‪@nathankalmoe.bsky.social‬ 'We'll kill you if you try to stop us' is terrorism. Quoting Media Matters for America: Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling: We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be
Post on Bluesky - article on Media Matters

"Just imagine any outlet that employs Jack Posobiec or Laura Loomer being convinced to let them go because of bad behavior. Or imagine anyone at Fox News deciding not to platform Chaya Raichik anymore because she's a stochastic terrorist whose minions make death threats to her victims. 'Maybe we shouldn't put her on the air anymore because we're tired of children's hospitals getting death threats.'"
"It's a completely asymmetrical thing, and this is always the issue with authoritarism, far-right authoritarianism vs. truth. Because, at the end of the day, it's not a competing political view — necessarily, entirely — it's also — it's a competing vision of reality. And so, when you have that as the dynamic, we run into really immediate problems that ripple out in really unique ways."
Episode 151 - What we (still) haven't learned from Gamergate w/Karl Folk: Sociologist Karl Folk and I break down some of the inauthentic methods that the American right wing outrage machine uses, and suggest some solutions to prevent mainstream media complicity. Griff Sombke, Aug 19, 2024 (5:30–6:25)

In this 2023 video by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason (it's 4 min), he says that Christians are authentic (and avoid hypocrisy) when they directly say that they disapprove of others being trans. If people (in general) should be allowed to be authentic, he says — what is normally a trans-inclusive stance, he notes — then Christians should be allowed to be anti-trans, because that's authentic for them. This is an example of the paradox of tolerance. As part of the discussion, the speakers discount the the importance of being "nice" to others by respecting their gender, and they assert that their own authenticity is rooted in displaying the (allegedly) obvious reality of their sex. Thus he begins the video by explaining that they don't wish to share own their pronouns in casual conversation because they believe that they (and most people) are obviously male or female and that pronoun-sharing normalizes being transgender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz6MNA_Ep_c

“We should be able to disagree on politics but still be civil and respectful” isn't for a candidate who won't accept the outcome of the election and tries to incite a race war. If you support that candidate, people might shun you and you might deserve it. /1

[image or embed]

— Scott Stein (@sstein.bsky.social) September 16, 2024 at 9:44 AM

I used to be far more willing to debate almost anything and try to see someone else’s point of view, a professional and dispositional habit/hazard. That went out the shifted Overton window, along with any naïve assumptions of good faith I still had, on January 6, 2020. 2/2

— Scott Stein (@sstein.bsky.social) September 16, 2024 at 12:12 PM

Aisha Harris: "I can see into the future, and it’s a hell of a lot of 'Here’s how to get along with your fascist family members at Thanksgiving' articles over the next several weeks" Bluesky Oct 27, 2024

Here's my advice: don't. As long as you are financially your own person, just go on and make shit real awkward. Earnestly ask them to explain their racist jokes. Earnestly ask them if they believe children are getting surgery at school.

[image or embed]

— Shepherd (@neolithicsheep.bsky.social) October 27, 2024 at 9:07 PM

Earnestly ask them innocent questions. If they want to talk about radical leftists start asking them to define terms. Earnestly. Innocently. Ask them, earnestly and repeatedly, "so like... You *really* *believe* this?"

— Shepherd (@neolithicsheep.bsky.social) October 27, 2024 at 9:12 PM

See this discussed on Philosophy Terms.

No comments:

Post a Comment

In case you missed it

Have you seen inside the book 'To Climates Unknown'?

The alternate history novel To Climates Unknown by Arturo Serrano was released on November 25, the 400th anniversary of the mythical First ...