3 ms·

The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want, and it creates a new problem: of becoming a slippery slope not again

by beaned 4y ago

The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want, and it creates a new problem: of becoming a slippery slope not against "intolerance" in itself, but a bucket category that is gradually filled with anything and everything slightly distasteful to the morally superior or elite.

eganist 4y ago
> The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want I'm having a hard time understanding this given how fixed the definition of "intolerance of intolerance" is. Can you help me understand how you're receiving it?
- beaned 4y ago
  I would say that there are people trying to live this very philosophy already, and we can see what actions it has resulted in practically in the real world. For example, Twitter is absolutely staffed and run by people who I believe would wholeheartedly agree with the posted quote. What types of rules regarding intolerance does their platform employ? One example of something it has banned is The Babylon Bee, for this piece of satire calling Rachel Levine the Man of the Year: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... Now you tell me, is that intolerance? Is it speech that should be censored? Is removing this type of satire something that you believe is philosophically aligned with the original quote? Meanwhile, Twitter still allows members of the Taliban to post. Do you think they're more, or less tolerant than the Babylon Bee? "Intolerance" is such a fuzzy concept. Intolerance of what? You can propose any crazy idea and when people disagree with it, say they're being intolerant. If I don't want my young children to go to schools that are staffed by ex sex-offenders, on the basis that employing them in that role is a great example of how people can be re-introduced into society and embraced empathetically, am I "intolerant" of something? If I voice that opinion on social media, should it be removed? It's not a real example right now, but that's the direction we're headed in.

by beaned 4y ago

eganist 4y ago

> The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want I'm having a hard time understanding this given how fixed the definition of "intolerance of intolerance" is. Can you help me understand how you're receiving it?

beaned 4y ago
I would say that there are people trying to live this very philosophy already, and we can see what actions it has resulted in practically in the real world. For example, Twitter is absolutely staffed and run by people who I believe would wholeheartedly agree with the posted quote. What types of rules regarding intolerance does their platform employ? One example of something it has banned is The Babylon Bee, for this piece of satire calling Rachel Levine the Man of the Year: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... Now you tell me, is that intolerance? Is it speech that should be censored? Is removing this type of satire something that you believe is philosophically aligned with the original quote? Meanwhile, Twitter still allows members of the Taliban to post. Do you think they're more, or less tolerant than the Babylon Bee? "Intolerance" is such a fuzzy concept. Intolerance of what? You can propose any crazy idea and when people disagree with it, say they're being intolerant. If I don't want my young children to go to schools that are staffed by ex sex-offenders, on the basis that employing them in that role is a great example of how people can be re-introduced into society and embraced empathetically, am I "intolerant" of something? If I voice that opinion on social media, should it be removed? It's not a real example right now, but that's the direction we're headed in.