Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Anthropy (anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 02:24:33 JST Anthropy

   Tolerance is a mutual contract.

   and if someone isn't tolerant, they are breaching this contract.

   therefore, it's completely fair to be intolerant to the intolerant; they're the ones who broke the contract.

   Practical example:
   "respect my ideas, and my ideas include not tolerating diversity" -> breach of tolerance contract, does not deserve to be tolerated.

   IMHO it's completely fair to demand from people who are demanding tolerance that they're tolerant, because they're doing the exact same 🤷

   • Embed this notice
     Fish of Rage (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 02:24:31 JST Fish of Rage

     in reply to
     @anthropy it's fair but it can be weaponized against minority groups that want their own spaces
   • Embed this notice
     Fish of Rage (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 02:28:32 JST Fish of Rage

     in reply to
     @anthropy to be clear I mean "weaponizing" in the sense that it's easy to abuse the wording to do something in the name of fighting intolerance.
   • Embed this notice
     Anthropy (anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 02:28:33 JST Anthropy

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage

     @sun not sure, I mean, IMHO there's a difference between tolerance and being allowed into someone's private club.

     You don't have to let everyone into every aspect of your personal life, that's not the same as tolerance, which is simply respecting each other and their own existence
     If anything, I'd say tolerance allows for having your own spaces too, whether they're minority or otherwise; people should tolerate this without demanding everything to be broken down.

     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     billiam :4chan: (billiam@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 02:56:22 JST billiam :4chan:

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage
     @sun @anthropy
     1. He is merely repeating the meme version of Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance"
     meme version:
     >we should not tolerate people who have "intolerant beliefs"
     real version:
     >we should tolerate people's ideas unless they are using physical force to silence others
     
     e.g. if people were peacefully and rationally discussing racial differences intelligence (or some other trait which makes blacks / browns look bad)
     meme version:
     <not allow
     real version:
     <allow
     
     If the example above was reversed (either discussing racial differences which make blacks / browns look good or which make Whites look bad) then the meme version would allow the discussion because those who peddle it are invariably anti-White hypocrites
     
     Note: I am not endorsing (((Karl Popper)))
   • Embed this notice
     billiam :4chan: (billiam@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 02:56:22 JST billiam :4chan:

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage
     • billiam :4chan:
     @sun @anthropy I was going to make another point but effort posts are seldom worth the squeeze
     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Anthropy (anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 03:08:54 JST Anthropy

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage

     @sun that's fair, though I think that's in general an important aspect of tolerance; it's a balance of sorts, you have to clearly outline what is considered intolerance, it doesn't just mean everyone you disagree with is to be considered intolerant.

     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Anthropy (anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 03:17:38 JST Anthropy

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage
     • billiam :4chan:

     @billiam @sun yea I mean, I know Popper's description of it, and I think it's fair because we shouldn't look for conflict even if people are messing with the definition of intolerance-- but I personally think that it can be extended in a peaceful and compatible way to say that, if someone is merely less physically intolerant e.g verbally or by some actions or other, that it's still entirely fair to do the same back, in a proportional way. That's still not the same as looking for conflict AFAICT.

     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     billiam :4chan: (billiam@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 03:17:39 JST billiam :4chan:

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage
     @anthropy @sun Popper mentions "paradox of tolerance" once in his book in a foot note.
     
     He is quite clear that those who should not be tolerated are those who do not engage in rational debate but rather suppress the discussion of ideas they don't like by physically violent means ("fists or pistols" - words aren't violent)
   • Embed this notice
     Anthropy (anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz)'s status on Sunday, 09-Mar-2025 03:17:40 JST Anthropy

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage
     • billiam :4chan:

     @billiam @sun idk if I'd really consider it the meme version.

     You always have to define intolerance, and while some are more fierce with this than others, what I really wanted to say is that nobody has to tolerate you not tolerating someone else.

     It doesn't always have to be physical violence for it to be a fair point. I do however think that the response should be proportional; By all means, meet violence with violence, but if someone doesn't like your existence, you don't have to like theirs