4 ms·

Whenever tolerance is used as a scapegoat for intolerant behavior, it’s always important to consider the Paradox of Tolerance: "In order to maintain a tolerant

Whenever tolerance is used as a scapegoat for intolerant behavior, it’s always important to consider the Paradox of Tolerance: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

efa 7y ago
And the definition of what it means to be intolerant is shifting daily.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  Intolerance is pretty easy to identify. I would guess that what you’re referring to is the degree of intolerant behavior that people choose to respond to or not. That is, certain types of intolerant behavior have been “accepted” by society when it is directed at certain marginalized groups or concepts. What’s changed is that the behavior is now deemed as wrong, but it was always intolerant.
  - efa 7y ago
    I'm talking about things like calling it racist that a black girl in an H&M catalog has messy hair.
lettergram 7y ago
There’s a difference between behavior and discussion. Most of the intolerance today seems to be intolerant of speech. I agree we should not tolerate behavior, but someone saying (or in this case tweeting) something isn’t necessarily the same.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  Being tolerant of intolerant speech, leads to intolerant behavior and intolerant laws. When someone suggests that it is acceptable that there are groups of people who it is acceptable to discriminate against, they are encouraging intolerant behavior against those people. In this case, it's mild, seems like a statement from the person that they will delete their related tweets, have realized they were wrong in their younger years, etc. would probably be enough. It all depends on extremes. So yes, I agree that speech and actions are not the same. There is a social response to intolerant speech, and there is ideally a legal response to intolerant actions.
tortasaur 7y ago
Every time I see this article linked in a context similar to this one, I question whether the linker has read the third sentence within: "Popper took pains to make clear that he did not mean the expression of intolerant words and ideas, but in fact the opposite: They who must not be tolerated are those who wish to silence discussion and debate."

efa 7y ago

And the definition of what it means to be intolerant is shifting daily.

bluejekyll 7y ago
Intolerance is pretty easy to identify. I would guess that what you’re referring to is the degree of intolerant behavior that people choose to respond to or not. That is, certain types of intolerant behavior have been “accepted” by society when it is directed at certain marginalized groups or concepts. What’s changed is that the behavior is now deemed as wrong, but it was always intolerant.
- efa 7y ago
  I'm talking about things like calling it racist that a black girl in an H&M catalog has messy hair.

lettergram 7y ago

There’s a difference between behavior and discussion. Most of the intolerance today seems to be intolerant of speech. I agree we should not tolerate behavior, but someone saying (or in this case tweeting) something isn’t necessarily the same.

bluejekyll 7y ago
Being tolerant of intolerant speech, leads to intolerant behavior and intolerant laws. When someone suggests that it is acceptable that there are groups of people who it is acceptable to discriminate against, they are encouraging intolerant behavior against those people. In this case, it's mild, seems like a statement from the person that they will delete their related tweets, have realized they were wrong in their younger years, etc. would probably be enough. It all depends on extremes. So yes, I agree that speech and actions are not the same. There is a social response to intolerant speech, and there is ideally a legal response to intolerant actions.

tortasaur 7y ago

Every time I see this article linked in a context similar to this one, I question whether the linker has read the third sentence within: "Popper took pains to make clear that he did not mean the expression of intolerant words and ideas, but in fact the opposite: They who must not be tolerated are those who wish to silence discussion and debate."