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
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
See this discussed on Philosophy Terms.
If someone has "broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by it, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
inspired by 'Tolerance is not a moral precept' by Yonatan Zunger"Post by Dwight (DB) @dabertime@mstdn.social (Mastodon)
No comments:
Post a Comment