3 ms·

I forget where I first heard this, but "Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact." As soon as one side has broken the treaty by being intolerant, they ar

by jadell 8y ago

I forget where I first heard this, but "Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact." As soon as one side has broken the treaty by being intolerant, they are no longer protected by the treaty. There is no requirement in a tolerant society to tolerate intolerance.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
That sounds like a rephrasing of the quote, “The constitution isn’t a suicide pact.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su... It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
- jadell 8y ago
  You're right. I seem to have been paraphrasing a blog post[0] I read a few years ago. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    That was a very interesting read. It occurred to me as I was reading that “peace” as a moral precept is ostensibly central to Christianity, right down to not defending yourself. Obviously that doesn’t describe the actual history of the religion, an probably doesn’t describe any extant group. Any group that was so unwilling to defend itself was probably destroyed or absorbed centuries ago. His descriptions really resonated with me, especially as regards the usual framing of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel, so the usual rhetoric goes, is much more powerful than Hamas or the PLO, so they shouldn’t respond using that power. In essence they should suffer a death by a thousand cuts, because of how it makes people feel to see a weaker group lose to a stronger one. Of course it’s also a convenient bludgeon to rely on schoolyard logic to try and restrict people, groups, or nations from defending themselves.
mezzode 8y ago
Probably https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14964006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14964006 I remember seeing this comparison and finding it quite profound as well.

by jadell 8y ago

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

That sounds like a rephrasing of the quote, “The constitution isn’t a suicide pact.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su... It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

jadell 8y ago
You're right. I seem to have been paraphrasing a blog post[0] I read a few years ago. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  That was a very interesting read. It occurred to me as I was reading that “peace” as a moral precept is ostensibly central to Christianity, right down to not defending yourself. Obviously that doesn’t describe the actual history of the religion, an probably doesn’t describe any extant group. Any group that was so unwilling to defend itself was probably destroyed or absorbed centuries ago. His descriptions really resonated with me, especially as regards the usual framing of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel, so the usual rhetoric goes, is much more powerful than Hamas or the PLO, so they shouldn’t respond using that power. In essence they should suffer a death by a thousand cuts, because of how it makes people feel to see a weaker group lose to a stronger one. Of course it’s also a convenient bludgeon to rely on schoolyard logic to try and restrict people, groups, or nations from defending themselves.

mezzode 8y ago

Probably https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14964006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14964006 I remember seeing this comparison and finding it quite profound as well.