3 ms·

> Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all

> Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance! While there is a risk that this works in practice, it's not really coherent. Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant.

jonahx 8y ago
> Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant. How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse. If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that, also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Yes, but the point is that you should be targeting the idea, not the person. That doesn't mean that what you do can't affect the person, only that you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. So, you enforce that gay people can marry, but you don't go after people who oppose gay marriage for their opinion.
  - jonahx 8y ago
    Sure, I agree with this. > you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. This is the tricky part. What if violence is necessary? You can claim it should always be a last resort, and I'd agree. But you can't claim that it's never necessary.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      I don't think I did claim that? Yeah, it might well be necessary, sure. In particular, when someone is themselves using/threatening to use violence to prevent you from doing something that doesn't harm them. But the point is you (or rather, the state) then apply/ies as much violence as is necessary so that you can do what you have the right to do, but you don't beat them up to teach them a lesson. Or rather, if you do punish them in this scenario, you punish them for their use of violence, not for their idea.
      - jonahx 8y ago
        Then we agree.
- Digory 8y ago
  "happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse." This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available. And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of "force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.
  - jonahx 8y ago
    > This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. I'd argue that this response neatly captures the flip side of the problem. To quote my other post: --- Both things are true: - Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. - Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment and practical considerations. --- So yes, you are right that "believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them." But sometimes it does mean that. You don't get to take the high road until you address what to do in those situations.
  - cgrealy 8y ago
    >Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. Most of human history disagrees, especially in the case of gay rights.

jonahx 8y ago

> Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant. How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse. If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that, also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Yes, but the point is that you should be targeting the idea, not the person. That doesn't mean that what you do can't affect the person, only that you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. So, you enforce that gay people can marry, but you don't go after people who oppose gay marriage for their opinion.
- jonahx 8y ago
  Sure, I agree with this. > you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. This is the tricky part. What if violence is necessary? You can claim it should always be a last resort, and I'd agree. But you can't claim that it's never necessary.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    I don't think I did claim that? Yeah, it might well be necessary, sure. In particular, when someone is themselves using/threatening to use violence to prevent you from doing something that doesn't harm them. But the point is you (or rather, the state) then apply/ies as much violence as is necessary so that you can do what you have the right to do, but you don't beat them up to teach them a lesson. Or rather, if you do punish them in this scenario, you punish them for their use of violence, not for their idea.
    - jonahx 8y ago
      Then we agree.
Digory 8y ago
"happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse." This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available. And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of "force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.
- jonahx 8y ago
  > This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. I'd argue that this response neatly captures the flip side of the problem. To quote my other post: --- Both things are true: - Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. - Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment and practical considerations. --- So yes, you are right that "believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them." But sometimes it does mean that. You don't get to take the high road until you address what to do in those situations.
- cgrealy 8y ago
  >Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. Most of human history disagrees, especially in the case of gay rights.