Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
So if you walk around advocating for the harm of others, you’ve violated the contract and your rights are forfeit.
I’ve yet to see a Talk Radio personality lose rights for advocating harm to others. On the contrary, they tend to receive enormous pay packages, national syndication, and A-list celebrity status as a result.
Perhaps you’re confusing the “social contract” with “karmic justice”. But people very rarely get what they deserve.
The “paradox of tolerance” only exists because people think “tolerance” is a universal good.
If you don’t start with that (utterly asinine) assumption, there’s no paradox.
Tolerate a guy beating his dog to death? No that’s not what the “tolerance” aspect of a tolerance society is.
“Tolerance” as a cultural feature or a policy has never referred to the tolerance of all things. It’s tolerance for race, religion, languages, etc.
The whole time, we’ve been intolerant of murder, theft, etc. The whole paradox comes out of a sloppy willful misinterpretation of the word in the first place.
It’s like a three year old concluding that “got your nose” is a paradox because they reached up and felt their nose after mommy got their nose.
The paradox itself is more rhetorical than anything because we don’t live in a perfectly tolerant society in the first place. And humans are not robots that need to strictly follow a code that contradicts itself, so even if it were law it wouldn’t be a paradox.
But it does work rhetorically because the paradox comes from the contradiction between “tolerate everything” and “everything includes the intolerant” by limiting the scope from “everything” to “everything that generally tries to be tolerant”.
the paradox comes from the contradiction between “tolerate everything” and “everything includes the intolerant” by limiting the scope from “everything” to “everything that generally tries to be tolerant”.
The contradiction is between the rhetorical ideal and the practical consequence. “Intolerance of intolerance” is a cute rhetorical trick, but what it amounts to in practice is a brawl between rivals. You’re suggesting the Hatfields and the McCoys have solved the paradox of tolerance by endlessly feuding with one another.
It’s just a resolution of the paradox, not a recipe for Utopia. Ultimately, I don’t think there is a simple way to determine what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Eg, the resolved version would suggest I’m wrong for not wanting to tolerate gender reveals that result in massive wildfires.
At the end of the day, the wisdom I take from it is, “it’s stupid to tolerate those who won’t tolerate you”.
There’s a name for this I just can’t remember what it is.
It’s all about following the social contract. If you break the social contract you are no longer protected by the social contract.
So if you walk around advocating for the harm of others, you’ve violated the contract and your rights are forfeit.
Obviously there’s nuance but the point is there.
Maybe you mean the peace treaty thing? I mentioned it in a couple of earlier comments, here’s a copy-paste:
Here’s a blog post on this, and a relevant quote:
Maybe that’s it. Sounds about right.
Don’t be a dick and you won’t have to deal with the consequences of being a dick.
I’ve yet to see a Talk Radio personality lose rights for advocating harm to others. On the contrary, they tend to receive enormous pay packages, national syndication, and A-list celebrity status as a result.
Perhaps you’re confusing the “social contract” with “karmic justice”. But people very rarely get what they deserve.
They are talking about an ideal, not describing the current reality. It’s a resolution of the paradox of tolerance.
The “paradox of tolerance” only exists because people think “tolerance” is a universal good.
If you don’t start with that (utterly asinine) assumption, there’s no paradox.
Tolerate a guy beating his dog to death? No that’s not what the “tolerance” aspect of a tolerance society is.
“Tolerance” as a cultural feature or a policy has never referred to the tolerance of all things. It’s tolerance for race, religion, languages, etc.
The whole time, we’ve been intolerant of murder, theft, etc. The whole paradox comes out of a sloppy willful misinterpretation of the word in the first place.
It’s like a three year old concluding that “got your nose” is a paradox because they reached up and felt their nose after mommy got their nose.
It’s only a resolution if it works.
The paradox itself is more rhetorical than anything because we don’t live in a perfectly tolerant society in the first place. And humans are not robots that need to strictly follow a code that contradicts itself, so even if it were law it wouldn’t be a paradox.
But it does work rhetorically because the paradox comes from the contradiction between “tolerate everything” and “everything includes the intolerant” by limiting the scope from “everything” to “everything that generally tries to be tolerant”.
The contradiction is between the rhetorical ideal and the practical consequence. “Intolerance of intolerance” is a cute rhetorical trick, but what it amounts to in practice is a brawl between rivals. You’re suggesting the Hatfields and the McCoys have solved the paradox of tolerance by endlessly feuding with one another.
It’s just a resolution of the paradox, not a recipe for Utopia. Ultimately, I don’t think there is a simple way to determine what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Eg, the resolved version would suggest I’m wrong for not wanting to tolerate gender reveals that result in massive wildfires.
At the end of the day, the wisdom I take from it is, “it’s stupid to tolerate those who won’t tolerate you”.
So the solution is to… do what? Rude gestures? Invent a new slur? Ethnic cleansing?
I don’t think there’s a simple solution either. It’s very context-dependent.
But the rhetorical ideal has never referred to tolerating everything.
Would that mean this guy’s now outside the social contract?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/11876784
Bro why are you working so hard to defend Nazis?
Do you really need to ask for answer?