3 ms·

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable [1]. Blowback is expected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parado

by r00fus 5y ago

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable [1]. Blowback is expected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

emerged 5y ago
Which is the tolerated here? Allowing abortions or not allowing abortions? Because obviously this phrase can be applied to both making it rather useless as a rationalization for either side. Downvote away, it’s unambiguously true.
- throwawayacc2 5y ago
  For what is worth, I think you are making a correct observation. Another correct observation would be this. Aimed at the people saying this is breaking with precedent and it’s settled law that shouldn’t be changed. The prohibition, which was written into the constitution, was repealed. Nothing is set in stone.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Isn't there a difference between repealing a law by the legislature and the judiciary changing the meaning of existing laws?
- fragmede 5y ago
  What’s intolerable is being against abortions while simulatenously making use of that service. There's something just too hypocritical about being against medical procedures while personally benefiting from them, be it anti-vaxxers who are fully vaccinated, or anti-abortion activists who want to prevent others from having access to abortions while quietly going a state over and having one for themselves or their wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter. If you're against something, fine, but practice what you preach. This is especially true for those preaching very loudly.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Hypocrisy never bothers politicians. For every activity X, the staunchest opponents of X will loudly defend their own X actions. Both sides are guilty of this. Laws are meant to bind one's opponents only.
moralestapia 5y ago
>Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable. You say that as if it was some law written in stone, whereas it's nothing more than a thought experiment by an influential philosopher (which, in itself, is far from an absolute authority wrt how humans should behave).
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  True, but every system needs some exception handling. The US Constitution is a long-running system but contains several broad exceptions relating to war because that's an existential problem.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    Right. I think of the exception handling layer as the human part of a trial that is supposed to look at the spirit of the laws rather than the textual interpretation of them, but in practice it's far from perfect, I know.
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  > a thought experiment by an influential philosopher Plus, this particular philosopher would very likely display a lot of intolerance against those proposing its usage so generously. And he would bite himself in the arse for even stating it because of course people misunderstand the meaning.

by r00fus 5y ago

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable [1]. Blowback is expected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

emerged 5y ago

Which is the tolerated here? Allowing abortions or not allowing abortions? Because obviously this phrase can be applied to both making it rather useless as a rationalization for either side. Downvote away, it’s unambiguously true.

throwawayacc2 5y ago
For what is worth, I think you are making a correct observation. Another correct observation would be this. Aimed at the people saying this is breaking with precedent and it’s settled law that shouldn’t be changed. The prohibition, which was written into the constitution, was repealed. Nothing is set in stone.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Isn't there a difference between repealing a law by the legislature and the judiciary changing the meaning of existing laws?
fragmede 5y ago
What’s intolerable is being against abortions while simulatenously making use of that service. There's something just too hypocritical about being against medical procedures while personally benefiting from them, be it anti-vaxxers who are fully vaccinated, or anti-abortion activists who want to prevent others from having access to abortions while quietly going a state over and having one for themselves or their wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter. If you're against something, fine, but practice what you preach. This is especially true for those preaching very loudly.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Hypocrisy never bothers politicians. For every activity X, the staunchest opponents of X will loudly defend their own X actions. Both sides are guilty of this. Laws are meant to bind one's opponents only.

moralestapia 5y ago

>Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable. You say that as if it was some law written in stone, whereas it's nothing more than a thought experiment by an influential philosopher (which, in itself, is far from an absolute authority wrt how humans should behave).

anigbrowl 5y ago
True, but every system needs some exception handling. The US Constitution is a long-running system but contains several broad exceptions relating to war because that's an existential problem.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Right. I think of the exception handling layer as the human part of a trial that is supposed to look at the spirit of the laws rather than the textual interpretation of them, but in practice it's far from perfect, I know.
raxxorraxor 5y ago
> a thought experiment by an influential philosopher Plus, this particular philosopher would very likely display a lot of intolerance against those proposing its usage so generously. And he would bite himself in the arse for even stating it because of course people misunderstand the meaning.