View Tolerance as a contract. If someone is tolerant of others, tolerate them too. But if someone is intolerant towards others, they don’t get to be tolerated either.
I really dont understand how anyone can look at the modern era of politics without a consideration for game theory, it is so useful for resolving these more nebulous or philosophical idea when it comes to thought conflicts. If your ‘opponent’ is constantly escalating and you arent responding, you are functionally forfeiting. and we all know the fascists are escalating as often and as hard as they can. if you seek peace or de-escalation you have to negotiate, and they wont do that. if you seek neutral ground you have to respond with equal escalation. and if you want to win you have to apply overwhelming force.
most conflicts in politics are not zero sum like this so its not a useful tool most of the time, but fascists are literally out for the destruction of democracy by definition, its existential by nature.
It gets easier to comprehend when it’s tempered by the knowledge of global literacy rates. In the US, for example, 54% of adults read below a 6th grade comprehension level.
More than half the planet can barely analyse the nuances between two similar statements, let alone comprehend anything that takes a formal education to learn. As a result many people lack the communicative skills that enable us to avoid conflict because they literally lack a conceptual understanding of the many words they don’t know or understand correctly.
Hell, try even explaining concepts like context and nuance to many people and their eyes glaze over. I’d like to think it’s a largely fixable problem due to insufficient education, but another side of me remembers all my classmates in highschool who failed English.
If it’s the same writing I’m thinking of I’ll try to remember to link it when I get home.
"Tolerance isn’t an ideal, it’s a contract you’re automatically entered into at birth. The contract protects all involved who agree to the contract, but if you break the binds of the contract you are no longer entitled to it’s protections. To be intolerant of an intolerant person does not break ones commitment to the contract because the intolerant person is no longer protected by the contract. "
These people never seem to realize that even at its most basic level, ensuring equal rights and freedoms requires a level of forfeiting individual freedoms. In order for everyone to have equal right to physical safety, you forego your freedom to punch them in the face without consequence.
These people go to talk about democracy, describe anarchy, then get upset when reality doesn’t meet their expectations. Your expectations don’t meet reality, bud.
They also don’t understand that protecting rights usually means defending awful people being awful. Rights are meaningless if only the right people get them.
It depends on your definition of awful. People with opposing opinions, perfectly within their legal bounds? Yes. People violating the rights and safety of others? Absolutely not.
What I didn’t agree with about your post is that intolerance is an attitude. So it’s not something we need to tolerate.
We can tolerate our racist uncle but we shouldn’t tolerate the racism. Because the attitude is like cancer and if we don’t put it in check it will spread.
Not having civilized discourse with people whose political goal is to wipe me and those I love from the face of the earth. Also, “civilized discourse” requires at least two parties who are capable of such a thing.
I’m all with you that you have to gauge the person you’re interacting with. But if intolerance becomes the goto solution then we give up what we’re fighting for.
If my son shows intolerance to people of other skin color I will try civilized discourse first and not throw him out of my house at the age of 10. If he’s an adult and all discourse has failed then I might show intolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance.
Someone somewhere said something smart:
View Tolerance as a contract. If someone is tolerant of others, tolerate them too. But if someone is intolerant towards others, they don’t get to be tolerated either.
I really dont understand how anyone can look at the modern era of politics without a consideration for game theory, it is so useful for resolving these more nebulous or philosophical idea when it comes to thought conflicts. If your ‘opponent’ is constantly escalating and you arent responding, you are functionally forfeiting. and we all know the fascists are escalating as often and as hard as they can. if you seek peace or de-escalation you have to negotiate, and they wont do that. if you seek neutral ground you have to respond with equal escalation. and if you want to win you have to apply overwhelming force.
most conflicts in politics are not zero sum like this so its not a useful tool most of the time, but fascists are literally out for the destruction of democracy by definition, its existential by nature.
It gets easier to comprehend when it’s tempered by the knowledge of global literacy rates. In the US, for example, 54% of adults read below a 6th grade comprehension level.
More than half the planet can barely analyse the nuances between two similar statements, let alone comprehend anything that takes a formal education to learn. As a result many people lack the communicative skills that enable us to avoid conflict because they literally lack a conceptual understanding of the many words they don’t know or understand correctly.
Hell, try even explaining concepts like context and nuance to many people and their eyes glaze over. I’d like to think it’s a largely fixable problem due to insufficient education, but another side of me remembers all my classmates in highschool who failed English.
Ah, you get what you give rule.
AKA: Fuck around and find out.
If it’s the same writing I’m thinking of I’ll try to remember to link it when I get home.
"Tolerance isn’t an ideal, it’s a contract you’re automatically entered into at birth. The contract protects all involved who agree to the contract, but if you break the binds of the contract you are no longer entitled to it’s protections. To be intolerant of an intolerant person does not break ones commitment to the contract because the intolerant person is no longer protected by the contract. "
Paraphrased AF
These people never seem to realize that even at its most basic level, ensuring equal rights and freedoms requires a level of forfeiting individual freedoms. In order for everyone to have equal right to physical safety, you forego your freedom to punch them in the face without consequence.
These people go to talk about democracy, describe anarchy, then get upset when reality doesn’t meet their expectations. Your expectations don’t meet reality, bud.
They also don’t understand that protecting rights usually means defending awful people being awful. Rights are meaningless if only the right people get them.
It depends on your definition of awful. People with opposing opinions, perfectly within their legal bounds? Yes. People violating the rights and safety of others? Absolutely not.
But intolerance to intolerance should be the last resort and not the default. You should try all the other methods of civilized discourse first.
Tolerance for fascism is like trying to negotiate with cancer.
I agree but I wasn’t referring to fascism but the principle.
What I didn’t agree with about your post is that intolerance is an attitude. So it’s not something we need to tolerate.
We can tolerate our racist uncle but we shouldn’t tolerate the racism. Because the attitude is like cancer and if we don’t put it in check it will spread.
Not having civilized discourse with people whose political goal is to wipe me and those I love from the face of the earth. Also, “civilized discourse” requires at least two parties who are capable of such a thing.
I’m all with you that you have to gauge the person you’re interacting with. But if intolerance becomes the goto solution then we give up what we’re fighting for. If my son shows intolerance to people of other skin color I will try civilized discourse first and not throw him out of my house at the age of 10. If he’s an adult and all discourse has failed then I might show intolerance.
Children should not be held to the same standards as adults in many things. This is no exception. If that’s your argument, you’re stretching.
Fascism isn’t a legitimate political ideology so there’s nothing to tolerate. It’s just genocide in fancy window dressing.
It’s always good to point out that that is philosophy, not science (neither political or any other kind).
https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU?t=306 rowan atkinson (mr bean) has an interesting opinion about it, I’d recommend watching the whole video.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/BiqDZlAZygU?t=306
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
But intolerance of intolerance should be the last resort and not the default. You should try all the other methods of civilized discourse first.