4 ms·
People rationalize that political profiling is acceptable using the paradox of tolerance[1]. Basically, if you can convince yourself that every member of a poli
by umvi 7y ago
People rationalize that political profiling is acceptable using the paradox of tolerance[1]. Basically, if you can convince yourself that every member of a political party is intolerant due to their worldview, you no longer have to be tolerant of anyone in that party and you are allowed and even encouraged to politically profile them, name and shame them, or any other tactic you think will make them less intolerant (such as getting them kicked off of github projects, kicked out of conventions and events, etc.).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- jonbronson 7y agoYou misunderstand the paradox. It's not merely 'rationalizing' to recognize that the paradox demands that we do not tolerate intolerance. The system simply does not work if we tolerate the intolerant.
- tpmoney 7y agoI find the only way for the system to work is to tolerate the intolerant. That is to say, it's vastly easier and more consistent to allow everyone their right to speak their mind than it is to justify why one person's speech isn't another person's threat. We're at the point where people are claiming MAGA hats are actionably threatening. So should that not also apply to anyone who says "eat the rich"? How about actual real communists that want to dismantle the government? Anarchists? How about anyone who promotes anti-establishment music (e.g. f the police) Which political positions, which political speech is dangerous and which is allowed? How do we know? Or put more succinctly, when all the other intolerant are gone, who will speak up when they come for you?