Who defines intolerance though? What if you call me intolerant because I do not like your favourite programming language, and have dared criticize it - is that OK?
It's a recursive paradox: an intolerant person cannot define what intolerance is, but that's what often happens in reality.
There are quite a few solutions to the paradox of tolerance. One of which was even articulated by the guy that coined the term, which the wiki link covers.
The article mostly redefine the question about tolerance as being a strategy for peace, one which will be given up when war is unavoidable. It not so much a solution to the problem of tolerance and more of a description of the motivations behind the who deploy it.
As an effect it also reject the concept of an intolerant person, as there are only people with different views about what constitutes an acceptable state of peace and what represent real and present danger.
If the left view the right as jeopardizing safety, and the right view the left as jeopardizing safety, then existential conflict is inevitable and tolerance as a strategy is dropped by both.
That is a good point. If we analyze this article called “Tolerance Isn’t A Moral Precept” with the understanding that it is arguing under the assertion that it actually is a moral precept and then imagine in our minds an enormous number of people that have no concept of “clear and present danger” at all, it is very troublesome indeed. In a vein that has very similar relevance to the article and discussion at hand, the fact that there is a Popemobile in Cars 2 means that the failed 1981 assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II didn’t just theoretically happen in the Cars universe, it objectively happened in the Cars universe. Now, it is clear that we do not know if that pope was man or Car but we must posit tha
"clear and present danger" is a concept used by the legal system to define when speech is or isn't legal, and the bar used is generally fairly high. Still, we usually deploy a jury or a team of judges to determine this in order to really be sure to get it right. It is not something that is easily defined in an objective sense.
"clear, specific and concrete danger" is something that may be a better set of criteria. If one can not specify the danger, or if it is not concrete, then its arguable not very clear or present.
Exactly! If we imagine that people only exist on paper then we can pretend that these made up people that have no real-world counterparts don’t know what a clear and present danger is. With that in mind it is obvious that tolerance isn’t possible.
Now, once you consider that the people that I’m imagining are nearly-spherical but covered in spikes and all of them are in the bottom of a big slippery bowl, you can see how they’re always causing harm to one another. Also in this scenario they can only communicate in grunts and as such they rely on me - the dungeon master judge - to resolve conflicts through a complex legal system that I made up. Sadly I am powerless to do anything about the spikes or how slippery the bowl is, so you can guess how that works out.
To all the people that talk about a “social contract” I say “put that in your pipe and smoke it”!
Intolerance is the wrong framing. You should be understanding. People who throw the label "bigot" around are themselves bigots (convinced of the superiority of their own beliefs without engaging with others views). A lot of people can have genuine disagreements with certain ideologies (e.g., they might think that transitioning minors is net negative for society) but also be open to dialogue. Such people are not bigots. Those who disagree with the left on any given point may or may not be wrong, but disagreement is not bigotry. There is no paradox there.
There is also a difference between speach and action. As a society, we should allow all speach (e.g., people questioning authority), but supress certain actions (e.g., violence). Currently, the American left seems to believe that people voicing the wrong views justified violence. That belief is abhorrent and fundamentally completely at odds with liberalism and a just and well functioning society.
Specifically, re-tolerance of intolerance, I highly recommend a speach by Rowan Atkinson on exactly that topic. If you Google it you can probably find it. It is worth a watch. He is an incredibly intelligent and eloquent man.
So you can frame anyone you disagree with as "intolerant", and then you are free to be intolerant to them.
Also I can be intolerant to you, because you are intolerant (to people you think are intolerant).
This is neither smart nor moral. This is logically inconsistent and breeds conflict almost by definition.
>Also I can be intolerant to you, because you are intolerant (to people you think are intolerant).
It's never been more clear to me that you didn't click the link
Who defines intolerance though? What if you call me intolerant because I do not like your favourite programming language, and have dared criticize it - is that OK?
It's a recursive paradox: an intolerant person cannot define what intolerance is, but that's what often happens in reality.
There are quite a few solutions to the paradox of tolerance. One of which was even articulated by the guy that coined the term, which the wiki link covers.
I also recommend
https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-prec...
The article mostly redefine the question about tolerance as being a strategy for peace, one which will be given up when war is unavoidable. It not so much a solution to the problem of tolerance and more of a description of the motivations behind the who deploy it.
As an effect it also reject the concept of an intolerant person, as there are only people with different views about what constitutes an acceptable state of peace and what represent real and present danger.
If the left view the right as jeopardizing safety, and the right view the left as jeopardizing safety, then existential conflict is inevitable and tolerance as a strategy is dropped by both.
That is a good point. If we analyze this article called “Tolerance Isn’t A Moral Precept” with the understanding that it is arguing under the assertion that it actually is a moral precept and then imagine in our minds an enormous number of people that have no concept of “clear and present danger” at all, it is very troublesome indeed. In a vein that has very similar relevance to the article and discussion at hand, the fact that there is a Popemobile in Cars 2 means that the failed 1981 assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II didn’t just theoretically happen in the Cars universe, it objectively happened in the Cars universe. Now, it is clear that we do not know if that pope was man or Car but we must posit tha
"clear and present danger" is a concept used by the legal system to define when speech is or isn't legal, and the bar used is generally fairly high. Still, we usually deploy a jury or a team of judges to determine this in order to really be sure to get it right. It is not something that is easily defined in an objective sense.
"clear, specific and concrete danger" is something that may be a better set of criteria. If one can not specify the danger, or if it is not concrete, then its arguable not very clear or present.
Exactly! If we imagine that people only exist on paper then we can pretend that these made up people that have no real-world counterparts don’t know what a clear and present danger is. With that in mind it is obvious that tolerance isn’t possible.
Now, once you consider that the people that I’m imagining are nearly-spherical but covered in spikes and all of them are in the bottom of a big slippery bowl, you can see how they’re always causing harm to one another. Also in this scenario they can only communicate in grunts and as such they rely on me - the dungeon master judge - to resolve conflicts through a complex legal system that I made up. Sadly I am powerless to do anything about the spikes or how slippery the bowl is, so you can guess how that works out.
To all the people that talk about a “social contract” I say “put that in your pipe and smoke it”!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
Intolerance is the wrong framing. You should be understanding. People who throw the label "bigot" around are themselves bigots (convinced of the superiority of their own beliefs without engaging with others views). A lot of people can have genuine disagreements with certain ideologies (e.g., they might think that transitioning minors is net negative for society) but also be open to dialogue. Such people are not bigots. Those who disagree with the left on any given point may or may not be wrong, but disagreement is not bigotry. There is no paradox there.
There is also a difference between speach and action. As a society, we should allow all speach (e.g., people questioning authority), but supress certain actions (e.g., violence). Currently, the American left seems to believe that people voicing the wrong views justified violence. That belief is abhorrent and fundamentally completely at odds with liberalism and a just and well functioning society.
Specifically, re-tolerance of intolerance, I highly recommend a speach by Rowan Atkinson on exactly that topic. If you Google it you can probably find it. It is worth a watch. He is an incredibly intelligent and eloquent man.