Notices by TZL (timezoneless@mstdn.social)

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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.)

@aral @flying_witch this is probably the clearest reason why I couldn't get a grasp on this war. It all seemed nonsensicle and arbitrary. Whoever was involved seemed to work with some "prior" knowledge and too much contradiction in-all. This explains a lot!

Are you following Abby Martin by any chance? .. she seems to have a good grasp on what's going on.

@flying_witch @aral is this accurate, do you know? I have very little insight into this war.

@lain OpenTTD?

@lain if it pays well, they will give it salvation ?

@lain it's a matter of facts, and it's a fact of matter ??

@lain @kaia I can be your pilot wave with many crests in my wake, but only if you don't go lookin' ?

@lain it was meant as a joke. ? I guess I was too cheap on the smileys now. I usually put too many in a message. ?
@kaia

@kaia I do not think this is funny at all. No. No appreciation for this kind of dark "humor".
@lain

@lain @kaia less "medal" surface area to attach to

@lain do you have something similar for conversations, i.e. acknowledgement, etc.?

@kaia you are really a curious human being ?? Sometimes I wonder if you just want to play with your smileys. ??

@lain @kaia that's just how the book describes it ?