You don’t see the glaring contradiction in what you just said?
How can the point of Pride be to “tolerate everyone with no exceptions,” while at the same time “never tolerate the intolerant”? You can’t have both!
The reason being: what criteria can you possibly use to decide who is “intolerant”?
Let me give you an example with the answers I assume you’d give… Have you ever heard the Chinese parable of “Good Luck, Bad Luck, Who Knows” before? This example is similar…
Q: Is a gay man allowed at Pride? A: in general, yes
Q: What if you learn they don’t like furries? A: then no, they can’t.
Q: What if they want to be accepting of furries but they don’t know how? A: then sure, yes, let’s discuss.
Q: What if they killed a furry once? A: then no, absolutely not!
Q: What if they went to prison for 20 years for their crime, realized what they did was wrong, and decided to make a concerted effort every day to be more positive & inclusive, which is why they now attend Pride every year and donate to LGBT+ organizations in honor of the person they killed? A: well then yes, clearly they’re an ally. they can come!
Q: Okay, what if they don’t like leather strap ons? A: ah, then no…
You see how this could keep going forever?
You’re either inclusive or you’re not. End of story.
I am aware of this paradox. It is well known and well documented.
The fact is, the paradox must exist.
Being tolerant of intolerance in an of itself will destroy tolerance. This was described quite well in my opinion, with this relatively terse and straightforward illustration:
Intolerance is literally the only thing that the tolerant should be intolerant of.
That’s exactly what’s being described, and exactly what has happened and exactly the point of all of this discussion. You are free to believe what you want, both of tolerance and intolerance, both of me and the community, and of society. Nobody can, and nobody should ever try to take that from you. You can think and believe what you want. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re free to say and do what you like as an extension of your constitutionally protected rights. The thing that right does not grant you, is that anyone needs to listen or respect your opinions, just as you are not obligated to listen or respect anyone else’s thoughts or opinions.
What this also doesn’t grant you is freedom from the consequences of expressing those thoughts, whether that’s in the form of downvotes, being excluded from social gatherings like pride, or being incarcerated for threatening others. Not that I’m saying you’ve done any of that, nor that you’re guilty of any crimes at all, I’m merely pointing out the facts. I have no need to judge you, nor do I have any need to know or change your opinion of me.
It’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it? Freedom? It’s a paradox unto itself as well. We live in a world full of paradoxes; not to mention logical fallacies. There’s a lot to be said on this topic, and it’s incredibly deep, and there’s no easy answer no matter where you start and no matter how long you examine the issues. I’ve made my decisions, and you must make yours.
All I want to say at this point, is I wish you all the best. Have a wonderful day.
I reject this theory outright. Intolerance exists everywhere, even among the “tolerant” - in other words, you dig deep enough and you’ll always find something the “tolerant” group doesn’t like about other groups.
For example - and I’m not necessarily saying this is bad! - many so-called “tolerant” leftists won’t tolerate certain jokes, certain protected speech and certain people (e.g. cops, billionaires, evangelicals, men with “traditional” views on women, etc), sometimes even going so far as to “cancel” them.
That silencing, whether you believe it is deserved/justified or not, is what right wingers view as intolerance of their ideology, and it’s what is partially responsible for driving further division and polarization between our groups.
Yet I am the only leftist I know who is willing to admit that leftists exhibit characteristics of intolerance.
The only thing that really matters is cooperation. Because we are tribal creatures, we only look to our “in-group” for cooperation. When one tribe grows larger than another, their version of tolerance (i.e. the things they’re willing to tolerate) becomes the dominant view.
The Holocaust was an example of the most extreme polarization ever observed in human history. There were many factors that led to this, and claiming that those who “tolerated” Nazis were responsible for the rise of “intolerance” implies they had the power to stop them. When for all practical purposes, once the critical mass of the “in group” (Nazis) had already been reached, their level of intolerance for other groups was so extreme that cooperation between groups/tribes became impossible.
I’m of the opinion that intolerance is a symptom of the disease of misunderstanding.
The more we understand each other, the more intolerance can dissipate. And this view is not a fantasy. It is supported by centuries of research into human behavior.
In short, one thing we know with absolute confidence is that as humans we fear what we do not understand. For that reason, I urge those who can’t see a path toward forgiving their enemies to take the most radical action imaginable: to try.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) I hope you have a good day too.
Tolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Those who break the contract of tolerance with intolerance no longer deserve it, and should be excluded from the protections given to those who do follow it.
Watch this and tell me it’s impossible to tolerate “intolerant” people.
I appreciate the share, but the last thing I want is youtube to start adding political content to my feed after i’ve spent all this time curating its algorithm into something that is mine.
There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
There is a lot of nuance in my statement. But you are right, I didn’t give any examples. So let’s pull one of yours from earlier;
How can the point of Pride be to “tolerate everyone with no exceptions,” while at the same time “never tolerate the intolerant”? You can’t have both!
Q: Is a gay man allowed at Pride? A: in general, yes
Q: What if you learn they don’t like furries? A: then no, they can’t.
Q: What if they want to be accepting of furries but they don’t know how? A: then sure, yes, let’s discuss.
Q: What if they killed a furry once? A: then no, absolutely not!
Q: What if they went to prison for 20 years for their crime, realized what they did was wrong, and decided to make a concerted effort every day to be more positive & inclusive, which is why they now attend Pride every year and donate to LGBT+ organizations in honor of the person they killed? A: well then yes, clearly they’re an ally. they can come!
Q: Okay, what if they don’t like leather strap ons? A: ah, then no…
This sounds like the reading of a contract with a list of arbitrary rules. Every social convention i’ve seen has also been incredibly arbitrary.
Breaking a social contract doesn’t require permanent and total retribution; it usually has a lot of if this then that conventions built right into it. Someone making an off color joke requires a ‘hey bro, thats not cool’ compared to a neo nazi advocating for the camps to come back at a local government office.
My point is that once the social contract is broken, you aren’t breaking it when you call someone else out for doing so.
You don’t see the glaring contradiction in what you just said?
How can the point of Pride be to “tolerate everyone with no exceptions,” while at the same time “never tolerate the intolerant”? You can’t have both!
The reason being: what criteria can you possibly use to decide who is “intolerant”?
Let me give you an example with the answers I assume you’d give… Have you ever heard the Chinese parable of “Good Luck, Bad Luck, Who Knows” before? This example is similar…
You see how this could keep going forever?
You’re either inclusive or you’re not. End of story.
I am aware of this paradox. It is well known and well documented.
The fact is, the paradox must exist.
Being tolerant of intolerance in an of itself will destroy tolerance. This was described quite well in my opinion, with this relatively terse and straightforward illustration:
Intolerance is literally the only thing that the tolerant should be intolerant of.
That’s exactly what’s being described, and exactly what has happened and exactly the point of all of this discussion. You are free to believe what you want, both of tolerance and intolerance, both of me and the community, and of society. Nobody can, and nobody should ever try to take that from you. You can think and believe what you want. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re free to say and do what you like as an extension of your constitutionally protected rights. The thing that right does not grant you, is that anyone needs to listen or respect your opinions, just as you are not obligated to listen or respect anyone else’s thoughts or opinions.
What this also doesn’t grant you is freedom from the consequences of expressing those thoughts, whether that’s in the form of downvotes, being excluded from social gatherings like pride, or being incarcerated for threatening others. Not that I’m saying you’ve done any of that, nor that you’re guilty of any crimes at all, I’m merely pointing out the facts. I have no need to judge you, nor do I have any need to know or change your opinion of me.
It’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it? Freedom? It’s a paradox unto itself as well. We live in a world full of paradoxes; not to mention logical fallacies. There’s a lot to be said on this topic, and it’s incredibly deep, and there’s no easy answer no matter where you start and no matter how long you examine the issues. I’ve made my decisions, and you must make yours.
All I want to say at this point, is I wish you all the best. Have a wonderful day.
I reject this theory outright. Intolerance exists everywhere, even among the “tolerant” - in other words, you dig deep enough and you’ll always find something the “tolerant” group doesn’t like about other groups.
For example - and I’m not necessarily saying this is bad! - many so-called “tolerant” leftists won’t tolerate certain jokes, certain protected speech and certain people (e.g. cops, billionaires, evangelicals, men with “traditional” views on women, etc), sometimes even going so far as to “cancel” them.
That silencing, whether you believe it is deserved/justified or not, is what right wingers view as intolerance of their ideology, and it’s what is partially responsible for driving further division and polarization between our groups.
Yet I am the only leftist I know who is willing to admit that leftists exhibit characteristics of intolerance.
The only thing that really matters is cooperation. Because we are tribal creatures, we only look to our “in-group” for cooperation. When one tribe grows larger than another, their version of tolerance (i.e. the things they’re willing to tolerate) becomes the dominant view.
The Holocaust was an example of the most extreme polarization ever observed in human history. There were many factors that led to this, and claiming that those who “tolerated” Nazis were responsible for the rise of “intolerance” implies they had the power to stop them. When for all practical purposes, once the critical mass of the “in group” (Nazis) had already been reached, their level of intolerance for other groups was so extreme that cooperation between groups/tribes became impossible.
I’m of the opinion that intolerance is a symptom of the disease of misunderstanding.
The more we understand each other, the more intolerance can dissipate. And this view is not a fantasy. It is supported by centuries of research into human behavior.
In short, one thing we know with absolute confidence is that as humans we fear what we do not understand. For that reason, I urge those who can’t see a path toward forgiving their enemies to take the most radical action imaginable: to try.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) I hope you have a good day too.
Gonna continue this from the other guy before me;
Tolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Those who break the contract of tolerance with intolerance no longer deserve it, and should be excluded from the protections given to those who do follow it.
You sound like a demagogue. There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
Watch this and tell me it’s impossible to tolerate “intolerant” people.
You’re just hurting yourself by not putting effort into discussions that would win you more allies.
I appreciate the share, but the last thing I want is youtube to start adding political content to my feed after i’ve spent all this time curating its algorithm into something that is mine.
There is a lot of nuance in my statement. But you are right, I didn’t give any examples. So let’s pull one of yours from earlier;
This sounds like the reading of a contract with a list of arbitrary rules. Every social convention i’ve seen has also been incredibly arbitrary.
Breaking a social contract doesn’t require permanent and total retribution; it usually has a lot of if this then that conventions built right into it. Someone making an off color joke requires a ‘hey bro, thats not cool’ compared to a neo nazi advocating for the camps to come back at a local government office.
My point is that once the social contract is broken, you aren’t breaking it when you call someone else out for doing so.