Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
@dabertime@mstdn.socialThe 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 terms of the contract, they're not covered by it.
In other words: since the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance, and have 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
@dabertime today I saw it framed thusly:
Tolerance is a truce. If you break the terms you are not entitled to the protections.
#FBPE 
@dabertime Yes, the intolerant exclude themselves.
@dabertime We don't have an existential crisis about locking up murderers do we?
@dabertime how much is left, though? Basic human rights still apply, I assume?
@hhf @dabertime are they also a pact? “Respect my rights and I respect yours”
@GentlemanTech @hhf @dabertime very, very slippery slope.
@Lebramor @GentlemanTech @hhf @dabertime
So you basically see it similar to international Law of war? Didn't sign the declaration therefore rules don't apply to you and the gloves are off?
@agowa338 @GentlemanTech @hhf @dabertime me ? No, i actually think this approach is very wrong and an open door to abuses. Like torturing torturers, killing killers, etc.
(And i'm very sorry for my poor writing skill but that's another story)
@dabertime it's all about setting the tone, when someone interacts with me I reflect their behavior actions and language exactly, which a lot of people do not like, I've had a few people say that I talk to them very disrespectfully, but remind them I'm just engaging on their terms and if they don't like it they only need to adjust their own behavior and I will follow...
@Vonskinnback @dabertime
This is exactly the kind of constructive pettiness the world needs more of now
@dabertime yeah man, it's true. it would be daft to conflate two completely opposite behaviours, there is no paradox just two basic points of data.
it is similar to how I see violence:
1. it is bad to harm people just for self gratification.
2. therefore it is good to harm people to permanently stop them doing that.
people who act like those two opposite things are equivalent drive me nuts.
@falcennial
I'm sometimes reading the kingdom of heaven is within you, basically pacifism as a requirement for Christianity (which I don't care about I only wanted to check out a classic writer), and he says that using violence to prevent violence is invalid because the violence you expect to prevent hasn't happened yet and might not, whereas the violence you commit has certainly happened, so you're substituting a certain wrong for a possible wrong. Dunno, still considering it.
@dabertime thank you. i already found this ,but then lost it. I have to write this in my mind
For those interested, the source OP mentioned:
https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
@dabertime
more than a hundred years ago:
> Tolerance is good, but not with the intolerant.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Busch
@dabertime Indeed. I’ve often said there’s no paradox of tolerance—tolerating the intolerant is, itself, an intolerant act.
@dabertime I like the comparison to a contract as example for explanation. It's not the same, though.
It's not people who are tolerant or intolerant, it's what they do and say. If someone says they don't want to be disturbed in the next hour and someone still comes in, that's not tolerating the borders the first person set. But it doesn't mean, that the person coming in, looses any right to be treated respectfully.
TZ @dabertime I refer to tolerance as a peace treaty. Because you can't break a peace treaty and then try to hide behind it for protection.
If you never signed the treaty, it won't protect you either.
@dabertime Thanks! This does solve it neatly!
The paradox also resolves if you define “tolerance” as “tolerance towards people’s immutable identities”
It was never really an actual paradox to begin with, it always required a willful misreading of what people mean by “tolerance”.
@dabertime I'd rephrase the end of that last sentence slightly to "and their intolerance MUST NOT be tolerated"