"Once you're willing to debate whether one group of people or another should be abused, then abusing and expelling people from society is something that is up for debate."
~@JuliusGoat
Really good thread about being "reasonable" when discussing intolerance from A. R. Moxon.
Read the whole thing:
https://mstdn.social/@JuliusGoat@mastodon.social/109486257175259797
Reminds me of the "Paradox of Tolerance" essay.
The Paradox of Tolerance
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
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 contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not abiding by the terms of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
@ZhiZhu aha! This pretend “gotcha” has always annoyed me but I didn’t have a solid framework for responding. “Tolerance as a peace treaty” makes the mutual right/responsibility perfectly clear.
@ZhiZhu Wait, so is the argument here that you *should* tolerate the intolerant? Because if so, then hard disagree
NO!
The intolerant are not living up to the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract and should not be tolerated.
@ZhiZhu okay, gotcha!
I edited the post to make it more obvious.