Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on 50501.chat

8 replies

lemmy.zip

It becomes a lot less complicated when you consider tolerance a social contract: I tolerate you, as long as you tolerate me.

When someone supports policy that does not meet these criteria they no longer adhere to the social contract, and are thus also no longer protected by it.

30
Ulvainreply
sh.itjust.works

Yes but the argument from the right has always been "look at you saying that your value is tolerance, but you're being intolerant of me. Thus, you're hypocritical and thus your perspective is moot and does need to be followed or understood"

5

That persective is reducible to "I'm not touching you" bullying, justifying themselves with nothing more than the pretense that their offenses aren't out of line.

9

Tolerance is not a meaningful value. Too vague.

I see the humanity in all which is exactly why I can't tolerate inhumanity.

3
_druidreply
sh.itjust.works

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's a strawman argument. The right labels the left as tolerant, and then attempts to point out the hypocrasy.

2

Like back in the the old days, outlaws were people who failed to live lawfully. They proved they were unwilling to adhere to laws, and therefore were no longer protected by laws.

Same thing here, but with tolerance. People are unwilling to be tolerant of others, and are no longer under the tolerance umbrella.

You can't keep your pretty cake, and eat it as well. You can't be intolerant and expect to be tolerated.

4

You reached the end

More people should know about the "Paradox of tolerance" | Spyke