Intolerance of intolerance *is* tolerance
Morally, logically, practically
#MAGA said a bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a #gay couple
They don't understand the social contract
So they will learn the hard way what the world on their terms means:
@benroyce not morally, not logically, and not practically.
I'm not even arguing against your position. I don't feel like taking/stating it atm. Just that "intolerance of intolerance is tolerance" is incorrect.
don't talk to me, talk to karl popper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
it is absolutely correct
-1 X -1 = 1
same as:
"i hate gay people"
--->
"i oppose you because you hate gay people"
these are exact opposites, not the same intolerance merely because they take a negative stand against someone. what matters is *who* and *what*
furthermore, it is a moral imperative to be intolerant of intolerance
@benroyce but if you reject someone you aren't wholely tolerant anymore. You create a partition of that which you are tolerant of. If you reject only the intolerant, you create a tolerant subset by ousting, in the same way an intolerant group ousts the ones they do not tolerate.
Morally, you make yourself superior in claiming intolerance is an inferior position to take. Again partitioning into subsets.
I think I more or less embedded 'practical' in the two cases stated.
the social contract says we tolerate each other
if someone doesn't tolerate someone due to race, class, orientation, gender, etc, they broke the contract
so you don't owe them tolerance anymore
you owe them intolerance. so they fucking learn
read the wikipedia link
popper explains the problem
if we listen to you the intolerant walk all over us and destroy tolerance
look at the usa right now. that is what your approach leads to
your approach doesn't work
popper's does
@benroyce
> "if we listen to you the intolerant walk all over us and destroy tolerance"
I don't think that's true. You don't have to allow them everything, in the same way that the tolerant should still respectful of e.g. human rights. You can disapprove or take a stand against illegal actions. There is a difference between an individual action and a person.
You don't have to be tolerant of someone taking a picture if it violates your privacy. But don't object to them taking pictures generally
@benroyce I'm just going with logical reasoning atm. I'm not arguing for societal or moral benefits. I just found your statement intriguing. (I'm not sure 'tolerance' is something that I have a ready position to state. And I'm not sure if it's the right term to base my moral and/or societal position on.)
That's the essence of our disagreement: you're calling it a position
It's a contract
If tolerance was a position then you are correct, you simply tolerate everyone and everything. Then what happens as Popper says: the intolerant grow and extend their intolerance and they eat you
But tolerance is not a position it's a contract
If I am intolerant I have broken our social contract. You no longer have to tolerate me, and in the interest of maintaining tolerance, you shouldn't
