4 ms·
> The issue you seem to have with it is that people are convincing themselves a group is intolerant, so your implication is that the group isn't really intolera
by weberc2 8y ago
> The issue you seem to have with it is that people are convincing themselves a group is intolerant, so your implication is that the group isn't really intolerant.
The phenomenon I’m describing is one in which people invent reasons post-facto for why their target should be considered “intolerant” and why they deserve the hate and harassment levied at them. If an example helps, consider Damore or the Christakis.
> I actually only rarely see people argue for "unlimited" intolerance of some groups - often, for instance, they don't pursue a legal amendment to absolutely stop these people speaking, but rather suggest a valid tactic would be to not give them platforms.
I didn’t mean to imply that people were calling explicitly for unlimited intolerance, but rather that it is implied when someone “punished” severely a member of their outgroup for an alleged infraction that would be considered minor by any reasonable person if it were true at all. For example, a racist journalist doxxing a teenager in a slanderous piece, rationalizing the treatment as warranted because the teen was wearing a t-shirt for a musician who had one vaguely misogynistic song.
> So the issue here ins't tolerance itsef, but rather its demarcation. I'm sure we would both agree that there are intolerant groups in society, and if the paradox holds any imperative force at all, then we ought to put our best philosophic and critical work towards finding in what cases that's true. That doesn't mean we should simply tolerate groups and stop looking into the matter.
I’m not sure if I agree with this or not, so I’ll just rephrase—this paradox is used to justify mobbing, harassing, threatening, and assaulting a lot of innocent people (or people whose infractions were trivial). We should do our best to minimize intolerance, but mobs virtually always do the opposite and we’re seeing a lot of that these days.
- claudiawerner 8y ago>this paradox is used to justify mobbing, harassing, threatening, and assaulting a lot of innocent people (or people whose infractions were trivial) I don't think it should be used that way, since it should apply to things which are threats to democracy in the strongest sense, so I'd say it should probably include Nazis and anti-Semites but not include someone like Damore (for instance), as abhorrent as a person I think he is. Or rather, how Damore is treated shouldn't be covered by a rationalization on the paradox of tolerance. I think our approaches differ in that I don't have so much of a problem with a non-value neutral society.
- weberc2 8y agoI think your approach is reasonable even if I don't see how anyone could possibly have a problem with Damore. Also, I'm perplexed about why you think I have a problem with a non-value-neutral society?