You must log in or register to comment.
It’s funny how the word “tolerance” already implies that something is bad but you just act as if it’s not. You wouldn’t tolerate having enough food and water, you’d only tolerate the lack thereof.
Because its a bad faith argument.
It implies something has to be tolerated because it is outside of the realm of the familiarity you would otherwise personally accept innately. Not bad, just an admission of the fallibility of personal experience at being completely objective at everything.
Not “bad”, just “not your preference.” I tolerate reality TV like 90-Day Fiance but it’s not objectively bad. And, subjectively, it’s better than most reality TV I’ve seen.
I tolerate eating Shin ramyun noodles when I’d rather be eating pad thai.
Similarly, you can tolerate people’s life choices (e.g. “polyamory, as a relationship choice, or smoking weed”, not “being gay or being trans” which is someone’s intrinsic self) even if they’re not your preference. And that doesn’t imply anything about the choice.
And, as an aside, I think political polarization has erased the place of “tolerance” in discourse. Because now, tolerance looks like acceptance when a bigot wants to murder someone for choosing different. You have to vocally, enthusiastically be an ally to counteract the polarized hatred from the other side, and maintain some semblance of the world making sense.
What’s this from?
https://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/kill-six-billion-demons-chapter-1/
Kill 6 billion demons. It has some of the most emotionally honest, colorful, and complex characters that I’ve read in a comic. And the art is so careful. It’s a modern classic. And free!
Thanks, I’ll have to check it out!
Oh shit, another reader of the best long running webcomic!
I found it on lemmy, and it must metastasize!
What the flip is this, looks rad!
https://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/kill-six-billion-demons-chapter-1/
Kill 6 billion demons. It’s a vast, well crafted universe with intricately crafted characters who are never forgotten or discounted. It’s a deconstruction of the hero’s journey that doesn’t ever overstay its welcome. It’s an allegory for modern and ancient and interminable and spiritual and human woes. It’s pretty good.
Thank you so much, just added it to my reading list!
Legalizing tolerance is a method co-opt a liberal regime into fascism.
Take anti-semitism laws in germany and protesting the Israeli genocide of palestinians for example.
Or the UK…
A counter example, Ireland.
that is legally forcing intolerance though, not tolerance. Legally forced tolerance is like the first amendment to the constitution that legally protects all political beliefs including those that all women should be shot
“Any movement (of intolerance)… … must be outside the law.” Is what I’m getting at.
When you create legal structure around that idea, you create a cudgel for the state to use on its citizens.
Protesting genocide in palestine isn’t antiemetic, yet people are getting locked away as terrorists on the basis of “anti-discrimination” law.
The first amendment is in direct opposition to the argument of this comic, if for no other reason than that single line of text.
The whole confusion comes from upholding tolerance as a principle or ideal rather than actually understanding it’s purpose. When people look at it that way, they either accept it or reject it, but both of those are wrong.
Where does the idea of tolerance come from? Hundreds of years ago, the West was wracked with constant wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants, on top of witch hunts, crusades, inquisitions, the whole “scarlet letter” thing. It was after this whole mess that people decided that it wasn’t worth it anymore, and that we should just call truces, that we should allow each other to practice different faiths without coercion. Eventually, this expanded to other aspects beyond just religious beliefs, however, the fundamental core of what it is is that truce between religious factions.
In many cases, it is possible to discuss disagreements and resolve things, or, it is possible to coexist while believing different things. Whether the sacremental wine turns into the blood of Christ literally or figuratively is a perfect example of that.
However, it should be noted that this was a practical compromise driven by a balance of power between the respective sides. The word, “tolerance” should not be confused with the word, “acceptance.” To tolerate something implies that you wish it were different, and you’re just putting up with it out of necessity. It is a truce, a contract, a ceasefire, between different parties with conflicting aims and ideals. Go back in time and give either side modern assault rifles, a clear advantage, and they’d drop the idea of tolerance in a heartbeat.
When a ceasefire is violated, a certain degree of patience is called for. Itchy trigger fingers can destroy a peace that both sides are invested in maintaining. However, if one side is able to repeatedly and brazenly violate the ceasefire without consequence, then the ceasefire is essentially dead and no longer serves a meaningful purpose.
To view tolerance as a principle and ideal in itself means that you’ve already decided whether you’re going to uphold or abandon the ceasefire before you’ve even seen how the other side is acting. Accepting tolerance on principle means letting people take advantage of you, while rejecting it on principle means alienating potential allies.
Obviously, it’s impossible to tolerate the right because they are so intent on aggression against vulnerable people. However, and this is true, it is possible to tolerate different perspectives on the left, while disagreeing with them. Rather than letting one’s experiences with the right inform their approach to tolerance in general, we should look at what is actually minimally necessary to coexist and potentially collaborate with people we disagree with. Instead of logicking one’s way into saying that anyone who disagrees on any point is technically being intolerant and therefore paradox of intolerance, deplatform them and treat them exactly like fascists, consider whether they are actually being bigoted and intransigent, or whether it’s more mundane disagreement.
There are different types and expressions of tolerance, so I think getting tied up in knots about a mythical all-encompassing tolerance that no cunt on Earth preaches (not even Jesus or the Buddha) is probably a side quest that doesn’t need completing. It’s like two linguists who’ve read a class of philosophy having a grammar nazi stand-off. You may as well include being abused and conned by criminals in that kind of tolerance, which is obviously stupid, but it’s no more stupid than thinking your personal philosophy is threatened when faced with a nazi whose goals you wanna prevent coming to fruition.
Tolerating people who have characteristics that are not necessarily of their own choosing is not in the same ballpark as tolerating those who want to eradicate that first group. “Leave people alone” is better, it includes preventing the non-leaving alone of people by cunts, e.g. nazis, with no paradoxes involved. “But leave me alone to be a nazi!” ok, what does being a nazi involve? “The sterilisation and extermination of…” lemme just stop you there. Done!
Not a cool guide, nor a coherent argument, nor a good representation of Popper’s idea.
Can you provide a better one?
I’m not sure which, so I’ll give all three:
Cool guide: https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/f059d619951639.562e313fcec6b.jpg
Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
What Popper meant: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration
In the immortal words of Karl Poppa:
La jiggy jar-jar do, duhduhduhreduh
Paradoxically, the paradox of tolerance is most often cited in the course of branding someone as “intolerant” and thereby excusing your intolerance of them.
Its a problem of semantics. Who really is sufficiently intolerant to be intolerable?
It’s a question of what they’re intolerant of. Innocent people, or malignant people?
There may still be ambiguous points, but they’re much smaller and fewer.
I’ve got one for you:
If you wish to be tolerated, you must yourself be tolerant.
It’s not a paradox, it’s a social contract.
I am tolerant of everyone except those who are intolerant of people doing things that hurt no one and/or those who hurt others.
You don’t like Nazis? Tolerance granted.
You don’t like trans people? Tolerance denied.
It’s incredibly simple to understand, isn’t paradoxical and is easy to live by.
This is why they are trying to make “establishment” a slur
yes, and the legal framework can (and should) differ from the social contract
So if someone says something racist or transphobic, I can kill them, right?
Or perhaps what constitutes a violation of the social contract and what constitutes an appropriate penalty is actually not simple.
To provide a concrete example; the Catholic church, as an organisation, doesn’t like trans people. What would tolerance being denied to the Catholic church look like in your world?
Something something due process, proportionality principle, etc. This isn’t exactly trivial, but that first rule does help in determining who is the one infringing. To start with, both starting shit as well as unjustified escalation are both punishable.
It doesn’t really help in determining who is doing the infringing either. There are places where saying “from the river to the sea” would be considered to be infringing on the social contract. And given that the social contract is a social construct, who’s to say they’re wrong?
Horseshoe theory in action
I am tolerant of intolerance. But I am intolerant of intelorance.
So if they want me to tolerate their intolerance of folks like me, they should also be willing to tolerate my intolerance of folks like them.
I have conflicting thoughts about this.
More often than not this explanation is just used as a excuse to hate whatever group you want while labeling yourself as the good one. But applied to the ultimate consequences most people would still be intolerant.
The classical example of not tolerating nazis because they are intolerant to others, is used because it’s a flawless example. The definition of a nazi is a person who wants to eliminate other groups from society just because what they are. A tolerant society cannot exist with them, so they have to go. Perfect.
But we have real life problems when we move from the perfect example to practical cases.
1The “everyone I don’t like is a nazi” problem. Someone who wants to be a good intolerant just have to label their opponents as nazis, no matter if they are or not. Just the label is good enough.
While Nazis are used as a classical example. The more pure definition is, that tolerant society should not tolerate people who are intolerant. Thus, only allowed intolerance is the intolerance to the intolerant, any other type of intolerance should then make you a valid target for intolerance.
And here is when I see the biggest problem. That society doesn’t usually fit most people values. I would give you several examples. Take billionaires, take robbers, take whatever kind of person you don’t like, not only don’t like but you don’t want anyone like that in your society, for reasons different to them being intolerant. There are other undesirable values in a person that sometimes are worse than intolerance. The lack of tolerance to those people really puts you in the same spot as the Nazi in the paradox of intolerance. As you are hating on people for reasons different than they not being tolerant.
I see two honest solutions and one dishonest one.
The first honest solution is to strictly adhere to the idea of being tolerant everyone but the intolerant idea. Which will imply a higher effort to accept people in the society that you currently don’t want to accept. Embrace that tolerance is the ultimate goal and just reject the intolerant, accepting everyone else, no matter what.
The second honest solution is to reject complete unconditional tolerance to everyone but the intolerant. Create a more strict set of values of what the society should tolerate. And embrace the idea that complete unconditional tolerance is a not the goal.
The dishonest solution is just lie about it. Seek excuses, loopholes or overcomplicated cherry picking reasonings on why the people you don’t want to tolerate are actually intolerants and then covered by the paradox of intolerance and be happy with it.
To each their own. In the later years I’m feeling myself leaning more for the second honest solution. Unconditional tolerance is not a goal per se. I try to create a developed moral system that could actually be universal and that everyone and anyone could and should follow. And think that maybe I should not tolerate anyone that breaks this ethical rules. Basically instead of saying that the “golden rule” is to be tolerant and that’s the only rule that people is not allowed to break. My golden rule is more on the lines of “be a good person”, which is harder to define but I think it’s more solid, and that’s the only rule that should not be broken.
And here ends my TED talk.
But that’s just people exploiting ambiguity, not a real problem with the principle. It’s an implementation problem. And since every other alternative will be dependent on a similar definition with a threshold up define bad, this one can’t be substantially worse.
You’re counting wrong when you’re talking about “most”. If most people hated society you would not see cities larger than a few thousand people. People are annoyed by it, but they accept it because they know what they get in return (conservative propaganda is essentially about lying about what makes society good)
We already do partial tolerance. It’s called fines instead of deportation, it’s called reputation instead of tarring. What you’re really looking for here is stronger cultural enforcement.
There are also a plurality of underlying issues not explored by this, because it’s treated as first order only problem. Like… why is it that people become intolerant and why they blame certain groups for things.
And usually that’s underlying economic or inequality conditions in the society or other forms of social upheaval… which people generally don’t want to address so much as they want to focus on the social sorting of hating and being hateful as the ‘solution’. It’s much easier to be tolerant when you are in an environment where members are all roughly of equal status, harder when there are perceived or real inequalities and abuses of power.
Real world is more complicated because people don’t hate for no reason. They may, have very legit reasons, and you likely may have the same reasons directed towards a different group.
Everyone does vastly over simplify this, because well, they want to use is as a litmus test to prove they are good and other people are bad, and that’s the only ‘use’ of this principle. Which is what folks do with a lot of moral/social guidelines… they want to reduce them to sorting mechanisms with themselves on the ‘right’ side of the sort… and if you challenge that notion maybe it’s not that simple… you must be one of the ‘bad’ people.
Further, everyone is intolerant of something. Even if they won’t admit it. Nor will they admit… that they and everyone else make mistakes. People’s mind and behaviors change… a whole other second order factor also totally outside the scope of this ‘paradox’. and for a lot of folks on lemmy… you can’t ever change or be reformed from your previous views… etc.
We also have the wonderful case of social movements that seek to turn innocuous behaviors into intolerable assaults on themselves, like the ‘manspreading’ nonsense from Tumblr.
Being a billionaire is a choice, a choice to hoard money to the detriment of everyone and everything around you. One could easily choose to not be a billionaire by paying taxes and funding their local social support services and donating to charity. Intolerance of greed on the scale of billions of dollars should be the norm as it is actively detrimental to society.
Robbery is a violation of personal safety and social boundaries and is also actively detrimental to society. It is also a choice.
Intolerance of the choices of others that violate the social contract of “don’t be greedy, don’t steal, don’t hurt others, etc…” is valid intolerance in my opinion.
Nazis are intolerable because they are intolerant of the vast majority of humanity itself and for reasons outside of most people’s control. Sure, you can make it a choice and convert to Judaism, but the vast majority of Jews are born into Judaism; It’s not a choice like greed on the scale of billions or breaking and entering.
For that reason alone, Nazis are worth disposing of. The myriad additional reasons to hate Nazis just makes the job easier.
Nobody says “everyone I don’t like is a Nazi”. But a lot of Nazis, who are rightly disliked by most people for being Nazis seem the see things that way.
Never heard “they call anyone with a different opinion a Nazi!” where the opinion in question didn’t turn out to be some real Nazi shit.
Example: "Unless you’re a republican or other type of nazi. Then you can absolutely go all the way to hell.
Tolerance got us here."
this person, comment copy on lemmy, is actually implying that every republican is a nazi. Their use of the world “tolerance” makes me think that they are actually an example of what I say that people use the paradox of intolerance as an excuse to feel vindicated about their thoughts rather than as a moral theory to follow. It’s the first example I found, but I think is hard to deny that a non negligible number of people think that one of the two major parties in the US country is a nazi party. Giving that the US is a two party system saying that the only other side are all nazis, is almost equivalent to saying that everyone that doesn’t think like me are nazis.
I’ve also seen a lot of the time the argument “if you have a table of 10 people sitting with 1 nazi, you have 10 nazis”. It’s a common argument, that’s not even related to those other 9 people ideologies, just that they shared a space with a nazi they automatically get counted as nazis.
As an exercise to these people I would like to ask what “constitutes a nazi” by their thoughts. And afterwards calculate what many people in their country falls under that definition. If the number is high enough I think is more likely that the person is calling nazi to every person who doesn’t think like them rather than such a big chunk of the population actually beliefs and follows the national-socialism ideology of Adolf Hitler.
republican or other type of nazi
The Republican party is currently openly supporting the idea of masked secret police disappearing people off the streets and sending them to concentration camps based on their race.
Yes, Republicans are Nazis. Yes, that includes the ones you’re friendly with.
I have beef with both parties, so if that’s what I were doing, I’d be saying it about a lot more than the third of the country that’s openly decided to support Nazism. As far as everyone else, your argument still fails to persuade, because the statement “Republicans are a subtype of Nazi” is factually correct by any reasonable analysis. So no, even at that scale it isn’t “everyone who doesn’t think like me” it’s “everyone supporting this plainly Nazi shit we’re seeing daily in real time”.
I’ve also seen a lot of the time the argument “if you have a table of 10 people sitting with 1 nazi, you have 10 nazis”
That’s the crux of the paradox of tolerance. People who are tolerant of Nazis have the same net effect on society as Nazis themselves. Making no distinction between someone who openly supports throwing people into camps based only on their race and people who don’t actually support it but are fine enough with it to have a friendly dinner with someone who does is again, the objectively correct position.
It sounds to me like you’re either the Republican variety of Nazi or the “apolitical go-along-with-it” style of Nazi and you’re looking for validation that you aren’t a Nazi. You won’t find that here. It’s not because I disagree with you, it’s because you’re openly arguing for tolerance of Nazis.
The Republican party is currently openly supporting the idea of masked secret police disappearing people off the streets and sending them to concentration camps based on their race.
Using your example, that means the Democrats are also Nazis; they’ve also used ICE (with masks) to deport millions of people at gunpoint for concentration camps and/or deportment.
Exact same organization. Same masks. Same camps. Millions of times.
So… if you’re a Democrat, per your own example you are a variety of Nazi… in which case I agree with you.
Using your example, that means the Democrats are also Nazis; they’ve also used ICE (with masks) to deport millions of people at gunpoint for concentration camps and/or deportment.
No argument here, but that wasn’t the point under discussion.
You are kind of proving my point by wildly missing my point.
First here we are with the “you are a nazi” argument. You disagree with me, I’m automatically a nazi.
Second of all. If you read my comment again you’ll clearly read that I advocate that tolerance is not the goal. I’m not saying we should “tolerate” nazis. I’m actually advocating for not tolerating not only nazis but a whole bunch of other people as well (I just don’t feel the need to call them nazis for not tolerating them), because I think tolerance by itself is not the supreme golden rule that will make the society we live into the utopia we deserve.
But the point is that once you are true about this you should construct a more robust moral code that “nazis bad and everyone I don’t like is a nazi”, because that’s just not going to get us anywhere. We need good people in our society. Not just thugs flying your favourite flag. And for that the definition of who stays and who don’t shouldn’t be a political tag. But the adherence to a robust moral code.
But obviously bad people who think they are good only because their political tag doesn’t find this a very pleasant idea.
You disagree with me, I’m automatically a nazi.
No, I disagree with almost everyone.
You argue that people supporting masked secret police disappearing people based on race doesn’t necessarily make them a Nazi, and that argument makes you a Nazi. It really is that simple.
You want to define “Nazi” as meaning only people following the exact political philosophy of the 1930s NSDAP, which is exactly how neonazis and other Nazi subtypes want it defined, as it keeps them from being banned for being Nazis.
“Nazi” to most people means anyone supporting a militarized ethnonationalism, and especially anyone supporting the use of state violence against designated out groups. For the most part that means Republicans and their supporters, along with Zionists and their supporters, plus assorted independent neonazi factions that don’t have those kinds of numbers. But yes, it also includes anyone looking at what those groups are doing and arguing they aren’t Nazis, or ignoring that they’re Nazis for social or business reasons.
My definition of Nazi in the modern sense of the world, (a neonazi we could say). Is that of a person who wants the state to have absolute power to enforce a reactionary society that will embrace a glorious past, exterminating every group of population that doesn’t fit into this objective.
By that definition, no not all republicans are nazis, some are, of course, many even, but not all, not by far. And obviously, not all people who deny your arguments about who is a nazi automatically becomes a nazi.
It doesn’t mean they are good people. But here is the thing, not every bad person is a nazi.
You might be a very bad person, and still not a nazi.
A problem with you way of seeing things, is that, is conveniently arbitrary. You can actually call absolutely anyone you like a nazi. That’s a fast route for authoritarianism. Tou want to kill anyone? Easy, you say they are a nazi and their death is justified in your eyes.
That’s just bad. You can have a system that defines who is good and who is not by such an arbitrary system.
Look at it this way. By your definition you are yourself a nazi. Because if I’m a nazi and I’m here you are sharing this space with a nazi, making yourself a nazi… See how easy is to label someone as a nazi by those definitions?
No. Our moral system should be stronger, should be able to accurately determine if a person is a good person or not based on their actions, without any chance of arbitrary labeling any person as bad by the convenience of an authoritarian figure.
Your inability (or more likely refusal) to understand simple concepts doesn’t invalidate those concepts.
There is nothing arbitrary about “people who support a militarized ethnostate” nor about “people who support state violence against a designated out group”.
No part of the "ten Nazis at the table is about sharing space, it’s about it ignoring their atrocities and being friendly with monsters.
If you want people not to say you’re a Nazi, why don’t you try just saying without any prevarication “masked secret police snatching people off the street because of their race is wrong, that’s Nazi behavior and people who support it shouldn’t be tolerated”.
You won’t. Because you clearly do support that kind of behavior.
implying that every republican is a nazi
You seem to be implying that not all Republicans are not Nazis.
10 years ago it was true that not all Republicans are Nazis. However, there has not been no resistance from every elected Republican to the Nazi movement within the party for far too long to be able to honestly make the claim that Republicanism is not Nazism.
I’ve always wonder. Why some people is so eager to make everyone their worst enemy.
I remember this joke, about the difference between a republican and a democrat:
There comes a new guy to the republican party and they ask them:
- Are tou against abortion?
- Yes I am.
- Good, are you pro christian?
- Yes I am.
- Good, do you hate the gays?
- No, I don’t hate them.
- Don’t worry, you’ll get there, grab a beer mate!
Meanwhile other guy enters the Democratic party and they ask them:
- Are you agaist the Climate change?
- Yes
- Good, are you pro LGBT?
- Yes I am.
- Good. Are you in for taxing the rich?
- I’m not sure, maybe I don’t believe in that.
- Get out of here you Nazi scum!
My point is that even as a political strategy we might be better off trying to find reasons on why other people is “one of us” instead of trying to find reasons on why they are the worst scum on earth.
My point is that even as a political strategy we might be better off trying to find reasons on why other people is “one of us” instead of trying to find reasons on why they are the worst scum on earth.
This is an extremely valid point you are making. It is why I oppose Democratic leaders like Gavin Newsom, Amy Acton, etc throwing trans people under the bus in an effort to get Republican voters.
The rest of your comment is incredibly anectdotal, and doesn’t match with my lived reality, where local Republican leaders called me a pedophile because I hosted some drag shows. My experience has been that Republicans lead and convince with fear, as opposed to using intellectualism to get people to hate gay people. Sure, that convincing may be incremental, but I don’t think the conversation you created in your head has ever happened in any reality.
Likewise, I have never seen a Democrat organization kick someone out for being opposed to taxing the rich, let alone call them a Nazi. In fact, most of the Democratic party’s leadership at the national and at state levels oppose taxing the rich. That’s why the DSA and similar parties/caucuses are gaining power within the Democratic party.
But let’s be clear, the story you made up in your head, has never happened, despite how fucking erect I would get if it did happen. Your story is less believable than Candyland.
All Republicans are Nazis. Republicans may be misguided in why they are voting Republican, but that doesn’t make them any less of a Nazi.
A Republican voter may be incredibly passionate about crashing the economy (9 of the past 10 economic recessions have been caused by Republicans), and they may be voting Republican because they want to crash the economy. But they doesn’t absolve them of voting for ICE to terrorize communities.
We didn’t give the 1940s Nazis a pass because they didn’t know what that the wretched smell was bodies burning. We treated them exactly as who they were: Nazi scum.
Just as a note. The Allied powers gave most nazis a pass. Only 24 people were judged in the trials of Nuremberg. Most people who voted for Hitler’s, even members of the Nazi party were not judged by it once they surrendered.
It was understood that most of them were probably not inherently evil, even when they were on the (very) wrong.
I would assume most republican voters would be the same. Most I know are on the wrong, but they are not inherently evil. They’ve been lied and manipulated, but deep inside they would probably just want to live happy peaceful lives like all of us.
Most people look back on Nazi Germany and see the populace as the Nazi scum they were. Most of the populace that wasn’t a victim, including the ones that voted against Nazism, deserve this treatment, as they did not do enough to stop it.
everyone says that the people thry don’t like are nazis
Counter bigots with violent intolerance. The best way to deal with a Nazi, Zionist, Klansman, etc. is with a bullet.
Never argue with someone that John Brown would have shot.
