We all do, constantly, on a case by case basis. We know that if someone makes a sexist off color joke, they’re probably just joking, and we can choose how much we want to validate or invalidate their tasteless joke. If someone is actively calling for the extermination of a specific group of people, we can decide on a case by case basis how severe our response should be to them.
People always ‘cancelled’ societally unacceptable behaviour.
Sex before marriage. Baby outside wedlock. Wearing the wrong clothes. Loving the wrong people. Believing the wrong things. Discovering the wrong things. Asking the wrong questions. Drawing the wrong things. Consuming the wrong things. Giving shelter to the wrong people.
People have been ‘cancelled’ since society existed.
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You’re out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn’t address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Diffuse sanctions carried out by the community. And if the community all falls in agreement with such lunacy, you have much bigger problems than how you handle tolerance.
You all are right now. I bet a lot of Nazis are minding their own business, just being a racist in a corner somewhere. Maybe hiding from the leftists who think they have the balls to punch somebody.
I bet a lot of Nazis are minding their own business, just being a racist in a corner somewhere. Maybe hiding from the leftists who think they have the balls to punch somebody.
But you’re being intolerant of someone doing nothing in a corner. So you’re violating the social contract, so you should be excluded.
Except no, that’s not true.
If the Nazi is keeping their abhorrent views to themselves in the corner, because they’re scared to voice them for fear of the repercussions, then I wouldn’t even know, now would I? The repercussions worked.
Come on bud, it’s your own hypothetical, try to keep it straight.
Ok ‘Bud’. The fact that there are repercussions is what is being discussed. The Nazis intentions aren’t relevant. Maybe he is in the corner to plan the 23rd Reich. But if you’re out to harm someone just for sitting in a corner minding their own business, that is a violation of the contract outlined above.
… I think you’re mistaking what I’m saying, or hallucinating something I haven’t said.
Nowhere have I said I’m out to harm someone minding their own business. In fact, I’ve said basically the opposite.
The fact that they are sitting in the corner keeping their abhorrent beliefs to themselves is a good thing. Because the consequences for trying to act on them or spread them are working.
In other words… As long as they do keep that to themselves, then there are no consequences for them. It’s only if they act on those beliefs or try to spread them, do people act in return.
Every time I see this question, I have to wonder if it’s genuine. Are you genuinely at a loss to come up with a standard for what’s acceptable? Is this really difficult for you to imagine? Or are you just pretending to struggle, for rhetorical effect, because you secretly long to be intolerant and are trying to find a way to pooh-pooh requests for tolerance? Idk. You could just be stupid, and “intolerance means not allowing other ways of life to exist” is too difficult for you to understand.
Because it always cones down to an entirely individualized arbitrary standard.
As neat as the meme is, it just abstracts the problem another level.
A level that still looks very similar to mob rule.
The thoughts and ideas that drive progress rarely start from the middle of society.
And in times of rising authoritarianism the tendency of the center mob to excise and exclude overreaches and leads to an era of fascism.
So, rhetorically, what im worried about is how the circle of tolerance always shrinks. Im worried how some use the line of tolerance as a weapon to control thoughts of others.
Is that stupid to you? Any other names you want to call me in the name of tolerance?
Because it always cones down to an entirely individualized arbitrary standard.
No, it doesn’t, and pretending so will not make your case any more convincing.
As neat as the meme is, it just abstracts the problem another level.
A level that still looks very similar to mob rule.
Explain how not accepting hatred and bigotry is “mob rule” and not just “keeping peace”, thanks.
The thoughts and ideas that drive progress rarely start from the middle of society.
True but irrelevant. What is your point, here?
And in times of rising authoritarianism the tendency of the center mob to excise and exclude overreaches and leads to an era of fascism.
“In times of rising authoritarianism”, sure. But waves of democratic protest for popular movements is not rising authoritarianism. It’s rising libertarianism, the exact opposite.
So, rhetorically, what im worried about is how the circle of tolerance always shrinks.
Such as when, and how? When do those pushing for tolerance ever “shrink their circle”? You’re just making this up.
Im worried how some use the line of tolerance as a weapon to control thoughts of others.
No, you’re not. If you really are, then yes, you are stupid.
Is true.
But who/what defines where the boundry is between acceptable and not acceptable?
We all do, constantly, on a case by case basis. We know that if someone makes a sexist off color joke, they’re probably just joking, and we can choose how much we want to validate or invalidate their tasteless joke. If someone is actively calling for the extermination of a specific group of people, we can decide on a case by case basis how severe our response should be to them.
We thought the same before cancel cultire came.
There’s nothing new here.
People always ‘cancelled’ societally unacceptable behaviour.
Sex before marriage. Baby outside wedlock. Wearing the wrong clothes. Loving the wrong people. Believing the wrong things. Discovering the wrong things. Asking the wrong questions. Drawing the wrong things. Consuming the wrong things. Giving shelter to the wrong people.
People have been ‘cancelled’ since society existed.
Exactly, this meme is nothing new.
Its all mob justice all the way down.
Do you actively encourage harm to others minding their own fucking business.
So thats your definition. Ok.
Define harm.
Physical? Mental? Financial? Environmental?
All of the above.
Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You’re out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn’t address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Diffuse sanctions carried out by the community. And if the community all falls in agreement with such lunacy, you have much bigger problems than how you handle tolerance.
To exapand on the original who: all of us. We are all executors of the social contract.
Yes
You all are right now. I bet a lot of Nazis are minding their own business, just being a racist in a corner somewhere. Maybe hiding from the leftists who think they have the balls to punch somebody.
Racism isn’t an intrinsic, non-visible behavior. Racists act externally to other members of society. They don’t sit in their own corner.
So as long as I keep my Nazi flags in my apartment, I’m A-OK?
Sounds like it’s working then =)
But you’re being intolerant of someone doing nothing in a corner. So you’re violating the social contract, so you should be excluded.
Except no, that’s not true.
If the Nazi is keeping their abhorrent views to themselves in the corner, because they’re scared to voice them for fear of the repercussions, then I wouldn’t even know, now would I? The repercussions worked.
Come on bud, it’s your own hypothetical, try to keep it straight.
Ok ‘Bud’. The fact that there are repercussions is what is being discussed. The Nazis intentions aren’t relevant. Maybe he is in the corner to plan the 23rd Reich. But if you’re out to harm someone just for sitting in a corner minding their own business, that is a violation of the contract outlined above.
… I think you’re mistaking what I’m saying, or hallucinating something I haven’t said.
Nowhere have I said I’m out to harm someone minding their own business. In fact, I’ve said basically the opposite.
The fact that they are sitting in the corner keeping their abhorrent beliefs to themselves is a good thing. Because the consequences for trying to act on them or spread them are working.
In other words… As long as they do keep that to themselves, then there are no consequences for them. It’s only if they act on those beliefs or try to spread them, do people act in return.
Because my original point wasn’t replying to you
“Do you actively encourage harm to others minding their own fucking business.”
The implication being that breaks the social contract.
You’re all actively encouraging people to punch Nazis.
You’re all breaking the social contract.
Paradox of Intolerance.
Every time I see this question, I have to wonder if it’s genuine. Are you genuinely at a loss to come up with a standard for what’s acceptable? Is this really difficult for you to imagine? Or are you just pretending to struggle, for rhetorical effect, because you secretly long to be intolerant and are trying to find a way to pooh-pooh requests for tolerance? Idk. You could just be stupid, and “intolerance means not allowing other ways of life to exist” is too difficult for you to understand.
Because it always cones down to an entirely individualized arbitrary standard.
As neat as the meme is, it just abstracts the problem another level.
A level that still looks very similar to mob rule.
The thoughts and ideas that drive progress rarely start from the middle of society.
And in times of rising authoritarianism the tendency of the center mob to excise and exclude overreaches and leads to an era of fascism.
So, rhetorically, what im worried about is how the circle of tolerance always shrinks. Im worried how some use the line of tolerance as a weapon to control thoughts of others.
Is that stupid to you? Any other names you want to call me in the name of tolerance?
No, it doesn’t, and pretending so will not make your case any more convincing.
Explain how not accepting hatred and bigotry is “mob rule” and not just “keeping peace”, thanks.
True but irrelevant. What is your point, here?
“In times of rising authoritarianism”, sure. But waves of democratic protest for popular movements is not rising authoritarianism. It’s rising libertarianism, the exact opposite.
Such as when, and how? When do those pushing for tolerance ever “shrink their circle”? You’re just making this up.
No, you’re not. If you really are, then yes, you are stupid.