Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Ben Royce 🇺🇦 (benroyce@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 09:54:14 JST Ben Royce 🇺🇦

   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:

   • Embed this notice
     Carolyn (cstamp@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:48 JST Carolyn

     in reply to

     • TZL
     • cognitively accessible math

     @geonz @benroyce @timezoneless A judge in New York ruled that it was ok for a bar to toss out folk wearing MAGA hats. It's not a "deeply held religious belief," well not in the real world.

     https://www.vice.com/en/article/bars-can-boot-trump-supporters-for-wearing-maga-hats-judge-rules-vgtrn/

   • Embed this notice
     cognitively accessible math (geonz@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:49 JST cognitively accessible math

     in reply to

     • TZL
     • Carolyn

     @CStamp @benroyce @timezoneless and they're not depriving them of a vital need or even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

     Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Ben Royce 🇺🇦 (benroyce@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:50 JST Ben Royce 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • TZL

     @timezoneless

     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

   • Embed this notice
     Carolyn (cstamp@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:50 JST Carolyn

     in reply to

     • TZL

     @benroyce @timezoneless My head hurts, but I think the bottom line, at least per Ben, is that if the MAGA say it's ok for a bakery to refuse business of people wanting a cake for a gay celebration because they have a problem with gay people, then MAGA should expect others to deny them service for what they *chose* to be. Is that right, Ben?

     For them to walk into that bar wearing MAGA apparel, they were deliberately trying provoke those folk & thought they could feel superior by being served.

   • Embed this notice
     TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:51 JST TZL

     in reply to

     @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.)

   • Embed this notice
     TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:52 JST TZL

     in reply to

     @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

   • Embed this notice
     Ben Royce 🇺🇦 (benroyce@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:53 JST Ben Royce 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • TZL

     @timezoneless

     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

   • Embed this notice
     Ben Royce 🇺🇦 (benroyce@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:54 JST Ben Royce 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • TZL

     @timezoneless

     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

   • Embed this notice
     TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:54 JST TZL

     in reply to

     @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.

   • Embed this notice
     TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:47:55 JST TZL

     in reply to

     @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.

   • Embed this notice
     Ben Royce 🇺🇦 (benroyce@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 11:49:48 JST Ben Royce 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • TZL
     • Carolyn
     • cognitively accessible math

     @geonz @CStamp @timezoneless the reverse in fact. MAGA is depriving us of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They don't understand that though, because on their terms, "happiness" is sadistic abuse

   • Embed this notice
     Ben Royce 🇺🇦 (benroyce@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 20:05:07 JST Ben Royce 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • TZL

     @timezoneless

     the usa is decaying. partly because we have taken this airhead "tolerate even the intolerant" approach, leading to trump

     now our civil institutions are being killed, so there is not top down law setting standards for us

     so now it is up to us as individuals to push back on the intolerant

     and we only have to do that because we didn't push back earlier, our politics failed us

     the only approach, whether by law or by individual (now), is pushback: we show intolerance of intolerance

     Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     flexghost. (flexghost@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 20:05:07 JST flexghost.

     in reply to

     • TZL

     @benroyce @timezoneless somewhere the ghost of the Weimar Republic whispers “decorum!”

   • Embed this notice
     TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 20:05:09 JST TZL

     in reply to

     @benroyce I think you might end up with 2 different aspects:

     1. Objective rules, to make tolerance possible.
     2. Personal (dis)preference, to protect yourself as an individual.

     It is interesting though. It makes me wonder if we should deconstruct 'tolerance' in core concepts (constituents?) that need to be solved separately.

     I think I need to sleep on this. Might come back to this later. You have the right goal in mind, in my opinion, but 'tolerance' is a curious term in itself.

   • Embed this notice
     TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 20:05:10 JST TZL

     in reply to

     @benroyce

     > But tolerance is not a position it's a contract

     That's an interesting point. I need to think about possible differences.

     > 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

     So I'd exclude you from "tolerant society". And you might exclude someone else from "tolerant society". Someone else might include you in "tolerant society". I don't think that can logically hold.