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.
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.
"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
— Scott Stein (@sstein.bsky.social) September 16, 2024 at 9:44 AM
[image or embed]
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.
— Shepherd (@neolithicsheep.bsky.social) October 27, 2024 at 9:07 PM
[image or embed]
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