5 ms·

That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettab

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• kaens 7y ago
  > Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. This is 100% not true.
  • dlivingston 7y ago
    You’ve made an assertion that it is not true - in fact, a very strong assertion. Do you have any argument to back that up?
    • goatinaboat 7y ago
      The essence of any organised belief system, religious or otherwise, is that some behaviours are virtuous and some are not to be tolerated, the nature of this intolerance may range from scolding to ostracism to execution. Is is this latter thing that is the only variable.
    • kaens 7y ago
      I know people who do not view themselves as fundamentally tolerant people. Further, I know people who consider intolerance as a core part of human nature, who would be prefixing their arguments with "everybody knows they are fundamentally intolerant". People who think tolerance is a fake position that people lie to themselves about purely to avoid violence or "ugly truths". The existence of people like this isn't a position to be taken that needs backing by argument.
• jonahx 7y ago
  Let's assume this is true... What do you conclude from this (I'm asking honestly)? That Popper is wrong and unlimited tolerance is the answer?
• ixtli 7y ago
  This strikes me as wishful thinking possibly born of not having had enough conversations with concerted racists. The ones who are not afraid to tell you what they really believe will do so without the sort of equivocation you get from crypto-reactionaries who talk about "free speech" and "tolerance."
  • knzhou 7y ago
    I promise I've met worse racists than you have, and if you ask why they believe what they do, they talk in terms of self-defence. That they were minding their own business until group X took their jobs or killed their kin or stole their culture or broke their laws or left them destitute or insulted their people or took over their government. There is always a self-defence reason, and even more inconveniently, the ones with good memories can always cite lots of examples (which is inevitable, because it's a big world, so you can find genuine examples of anything). Would they use the words "free speech" and "tolerance"? Probably not. But "standing up for yourself after being attacked unprovoked" and "justifiable intolerance of intolerance" are the same argument, with only superficially different wrapping.
    • ixtli 7y ago
      I certainly hope you haven't. But yes I know what you're talking about: that is certainly a behavior of a certain type of racist I've encountered. I find quite often that people with reactionary beliefs feel that they are personally under attack, or at least its important that they nurture a certain type of victimhood. I must insist, though, that there is another type that comes from a belief that your perceived "genetic" (here in quotes because these people tend to play very fast and loose with that word) inheritance make you in some way implicitly superior to people who lack your "genes". It's for this reason that I bring all of this up: no matter what they say, there is a difference between wanting to relegate people of color or gays to a second class in society and the intolerance of those beliefs. It's this relation that Popper was talking about. I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to say what you've experienced isn't real. There are definitely people like this. My reply was only in the context of the top-level "tolerance of intolerance" quote.
• watwut 7y ago
  That is because people around you see tolerance as good. I know people who see themselves of guardians of rightful effectively and see intolerance as order.