this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
439 points (90.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43991 readers
609 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a paradox. You cannot tolerate everything. That's why there's no such thing as not being bigoted. It's literally impossible to tolerate everything.
You just have to pick what things you're not going to tolerate. Now if only we could always agree on what that is.
Intolerance. Intolerance is the one thing you don't tolerate. It being a rhetorical paradox doesn't mean it's difficult to implement.
It absolutely is because there are things that you where you cannot tolerate both oposing viewpoints. There's also things that you do not want to tolerate.
Unless you believe it's not okay to be intolerant of murder.
I hope that helps illustrate how it's not just a rhetorical paradox. It's a conceptual one too. Much of the time, it's not tolerance vs intolerance. It's picking between two flavors of intolerance.
Well I mean if you're expanding the argument to things as well, then yeah, it becomes rather unwieldy. But if you constrain it to intolerance for people, then it remains rather simple.
Not at all. I'm not talking about just things. I'm also talking about about people.
It is not simple to determine the extent to which to tolerate different groups of people. Unless you're saying that you want to be equally tolerant of murderers, races, all religions, and people who like pineapple on pizza.
Murder falls under intolerance. Religion can exist without being intolerant, but often doesn't. The smell test really is pretty simple: if you're not actively hurting someone besides yourself, you should be tolerated. Along with that, we decide that intolerance for other reasons (ie, because of a person's genetic makeup or mode of expression) is itself harmful.
Now we can find tune and dicker about where that line of injury is, and of course there are special cases where the alleged hurt is spread around and it's hard to decide how to adjudicate that, but that's what the law and all its apparatus is for, after all.
I wouldn't say murder falls under intolerance. It certainly can, but not all the time.
Who gets to define what constitutes not actively hurting someone besides yourself? Is it just as defined by you or do other people get a say? What do you do when someone decides that not wearing a hijab or extra-marital sex is actively harming others?
I hope that illustrates why this is not simple at all. It's incredibly complex.
And as I was saying in my initial comment, it's literally impossible to objectively define tolerance. But, you have to choose to tolerate some things and not others (because they're mutually exclusive). So you end up with different forms of intolerance of behaviors that you deem intolerant.
And we decide that intolerance is acceptable for many other reasons. You don't tolerate ignorant people. You don't tolerate people who cannot arrive on time. You don't tolerate people who are too rude. Intolerance of those aspects
The special cases are the ones where it's actually clear. The majority of the cases are where we struggle to know where to draw the line.