• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17 months ago

    I’m not trolling.

    The minute you allow intolerance to exist, you have lost.

    Karl Popper framed it incorrectly. He makes it sound like a moral imperative and the hateful have seized on that.

    If tolerance is a moral issue there is little that can be done about those who choose to be intolerant. Being moral is an individual choice.

    It IS a social contract, howevet. If I want my lifestyle to be tolerated then I need to tolerate that of others, unless my (or their) lifestyle imposes unnecessary restrictions on the other.

    For example, all the Christians whining about Christianity not being tolerated. They’re getting it wrong - nobody is saying don’t be Christian. They break the contract by imposing their specific values on everyone else by force.

    There is a baseline on which the vast majority agree concerning appropriate behavior in society. Murder, for example, is generally considered wrong. We don’t tolerate it.

    Breaking a contract has consequences.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      For example, all the Christians whining about Christianity not being tolerated. They’re getting it wrong - nobody is saying don’t be Christian. They break the contract by imposing their specific values on everyone else by force.

      Dude, that’s literally the paradox of tolerance.

      They take advantage of the goodwill and social norms of the rest of the population in the interest of imposing their specific values on everyone else by force. They don’t believe that that sense of goodwill and social norms are things they have to abide by, but they recognize the power of exploiting a system against itself, and that power is very real. The initial stages of this generally involve aggressively exploiting the letter of the law, and often, working entirely contrary to the spirit of the law.