• hiddengoat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or don’t look up the paradox of intolerance because it’s nothing more than linguistic masturbation.

      • hiddengoat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The concept of tolerance is not and never has been about accepting the choices and actions of other people without exception. You do not tolerate someone punching you in the face. You do not tolerate someone diddling kids. You do not tolerate Nazis. By ignoring these actions you are not indicating tolerance, you are indicating ACCEPTANCE. You’re fine with Nazis, and diddlers, and people randomly punching you in the face.

        Calling this “tolerance” reeks of “well ackshully…” at the highest academic level. It’s intentionally misunderstanding a human concept in favor of a dictionary definition.

        You are never intolerant of intolerance, you REJECT intolerance, making the whole thing moot.

        Also the whole concept gives Nazis a reason to whine about “discrimination” while they’re being woodchippered and those little bitches already scream enough when fed in feet-first.

        • dumblederp@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tolerance is a social contract. If people aren’t taking part in that social contact they don’t deserve the benefits of it.

        • Taleya@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s actually intentional. Popper’s philosophical wanking has been wildly co-opted and twisted by the right. ‘So much for the tolerant left!’ they cry. Like the ‘meet me in the middle’ argument it’s designed to just shit the waters up.

          I ain’t meeting the cunts in the middle and who the fuck told you i was the tolerant left.