3 ms·

I'd argue allowing some intolerance is required because no system is 100% anything. Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding

I'd argue allowing some intolerance is required because no system is 100% anything. Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on. The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.

jolux 10y ago
Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
  This is a black and white interpretation. Here's your refutation: When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
  - jolux 10y ago
    Ok, but there is very clearly a boundary on acceptable behavior that we classify as not just "being yourself." How are you planning to draw that line? This isn't some unanswerable subjectivity we're talking about, and it's more a testament to the paucity of education in America that we can't recognize rational discussion from irrational anymore. For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

jolux 10y ago

Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.

crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
This is a black and white interpretation. Here's your refutation: When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
- jolux 10y ago
  Ok, but there is very clearly a boundary on acceptable behavior that we classify as not just "being yourself." How are you planning to draw that line? This isn't some unanswerable subjectivity we're talking about, and it's more a testament to the paucity of education in America that we can't recognize rational discussion from irrational anymore. For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.