• vanya913
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Says who? It’s okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it’s a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that’s how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.

      • vanya913
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That’s what Rawls argues.

        But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.

        For example, France’s ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That’s how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.

        If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn’t a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.

        You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I’m not trying to “both sides” this, I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.

        • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves

          Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.

          But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.

          All we can do is give it our best try. It’s better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can’t get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.

          You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well.

          The good news is that you don’t have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.

          I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.

          I don’t agree, but even so, you haven’t proposed an alternative yet.