#the paradox of tolerance

[thoughtportal]

[nando161mando]

Always reminded of this when the far right could have been stopped but were not and were instead given a free pass as a legitimate political movement. Fuck them.

[odinsblog]

The owner of Substack is hosting Nazis because “free speech”

[cryptovalid]

It’s thought-experiment-o’-clock

Try to imagine this:

1. You suffer from a certain kind of depression (let’s call it Type G), which puts you at risk of suicide. You’re lucky though: there’s a lot of treatments that are very effective, and some of them are basically free. Let’s call them The Cure.

2. However, some people, let’s call them Opponents, believe that The Cure involves affirming delusions and treating you with a degree of trust and respect that they claim will be abused. The scientific community disagrees with the Opponents.

3. Opponents do whatever they can to disrupt the distribution of The Cure: from vocally spreading misinformation and concern trolling to actively accusing you and your supporters of misogyny and pedophilia. And of course, actual physical violence.

4. Some Opponents believe they can recognize the effects of The Cure on sight, and can prove it by invasive searches. Because of this, they make laws not only outlawing The Cure, but also making invasive searches a prerequisite to participate in public life. But only if you ‘look like‘ you’re receiving The Cure.

5. Of course, any problem caused by the Opponents’ decisions are blamed on you. Any anger you might feel, any ill-conceived coping mechanisms on your part, are signs that they are right.

Of course, I realize that not all trans or nonbinary people suffer from dysphoria, and Type G is more akin to any deadly effects of marginalization in general. I feel this thought experiment basically applies not only to experiences of transphobia, but to most other forms of bigotry as well.

The Cure is an analogy for anything from basic decency to gender affirming care to complete liberation from oppression. It should be clear from the experiment that Opponents don’t really care about the specifics of The Cure: no amount of argument will convince them because they just want you to stop demanding any change whatsoever.

They don’t care that you suffer from Type G. If they can intimidate you into suffering in silence, that’s better. Depending on the situation, your death might be more or less preferable to Opponents.

We should not debate Opponents. They do not use words responsibly, and do not care about consensus. They’ve already opted out of tolerance, and can therefore not coexist peacefully in a tolerant society.

When there is a clear Cure for people who are dying, and the only objections you have to it are uninformed opinions and alarmist hypothetical fears, you should shut up about it.

[jonberry555]

The Owl House and the Paradox of Tolerance

Part 1: https://youtube.com/shorts/766oahADLyc?feature=share

Part 2: https://youtube.com/shorts/yBgF6W-w2s8?feature=share

[brasskingfisher]

Unconscious bias and The AITA test

So what with a seemingly random increase in the amount of discriminatiory and binaric bullshit I've seen cropping up on my socials I thought I'd offer up this handy piece of advice for anyone who wants it and to use as a thought experiment to use to see if someone actually does understand/care about any particular issue, or if their opinion is based purely on their political, spiritual, philosophical outlook (now whilst this is mainly aimed at FARTs, associated "Misandry isn't real!" radfems and other transphobes/exclusionists it's probably useful for dealing with various conservatives you might encounter in the wild and identifying your own blind spots).

Now what you need to do is simply consider how you would respond if the positions in whatever scenario you want to apply it to were to be reversed. Now this goes beyond thinking about how you PERSONALLY would feel if you were the victim, or if you identified with the victim rather than the aggressor. Just take a moment to think about how you'd feel and what you'd do if the positions were reversed, and would you do the same?

Let's take everyone's favourite hypothetical argument of a man/AMAB person claiming to identify as a woman in order to gain access to a 'women's only' space in order to sexually harass/assualt a woman. How would all of you transphobes react to a hypothetical woman/AFAB person doing the same to a 'men only' space? Would you be treating it as a real danger than needed to be guarded against? Or a preposterous example of hyperbole? Likewise how would you treat that hypothetical person? Would you be decrying them as a dangerous pervert who needs to be locked up for the protection of society, or defending them as someone who made a mistake and needs help?

The main point is if the roles of victim/perpetrator changes your reaction/willingness to act then maybe you need to consider your position and think about WHY you feel that way.

[pyraffin-drgo]

Omfg fucking chuds joined my *roller derby* team. A transphobic meme reposting piece of shit that reposts Dylan Mulvane memes and has a gun as a background picture.

And one that posts reports of what ~offensive~ queer things are being sold at walmart. Namely Heartstopper. Apparently it's WILDLY inappropriate and smut she wouldn't even want to see if it were straight! that they're pushing on DA CHILDREN!!!!! Because walmart disrepsects youth media and tosses teen stuff beside elmo. Or someone dropped it there. She then posts picture examples of the "wildly inappropriate imagery" and it's the most mild cuddle scenes, a kiss where the faces aren't even drawn in detail enough to have noses or mouths, and one scene where someone says 'fuck off' in an argument.

Greeaaatttttttttttt.

[myrddin-wylt]

https://www.tumblr.com/myrddin-wylt/725363396659314688/so-polands-parliamentary-elections-are-coming-up?source=share

the far right kinda lost in spain so the odds on the good side is much higher.

for the parties, Lewica is much better than PO(tusk/EPP) as they're pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ+, pro separation of powers and less corruption (in which tusk face many corruption scandals like PiS[S] )

on Ukraine, all but so-called 'konfederacja' (led by Korwin-Mikke, a pro-Putin and pro-Lukashenko politician who supports an presidental system as authoritarian as in Russia) support military aid and NATO.

that all for the brief introduction of this decisive Polish parliamentary election in October and my opinion on it.

The far-right also lost in the US, too, when Biden got elected over Trump. not without enormous effort, of course, and there was also an attempted coup, but fighting growing authoritarianism can be done! I'm happy to add Spain to the list.

I can't speak on Polish politics to make any prediction at all - just this ask alone is more knowledgeable than I am on this topic - but does a pro-life candidate have a chance of winning in Poland? Like holy fuck I hope they do, but I'm trying to figure out if I should get my hopes up (again). at the very least, a candidate who's willing to tolerate abortion would be better than the current situation. of course, I've been saying the exact same thing about my own home state too....

..... I don't think I've seen a single Pole online or offline who supports Russia. Tbh I'm kinda glad to know there's one politician who does; having that one extremist everyone else hates is a good metric for how genuinely democratic a country is imo. as long as they're a fringe minority, anyway.

[thearbourist]

This is how it Should Work in a Liberal Democracy - Eva Kurilova

The Paradox of Tolerance has been misused by those, mostly the activist left, in an attempt to quell freedom of speech and expression.  Find the full essay here.

[this-charming-primevalmusic]

"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance."

[thisisnotapublicforum]

[troythecatfish]

[essektheylyss]

I think it's important to note that I do believe Orym wasn't totally thinking straight when he nodded to Laudna. Because if he'd have been thinking straight, he'd have gotten in front of her and then very efficiently killed Bor'dor himself, and he'd have still been correct for it. Hope this helps. 😌

[odinsblog]

[arbitrary-fascinations]

Never thought I'd see a *kids show* eloquently and unflinchingly depict the paradox of tolerance instead of giving unlimited grace to a villain too dangerous to deserve it.

[system-of-a-feather]

I honestly fully agree and understand the concept of the "paradox of tolerance" or whatever its called where you have to be intolerant to intolerance to be tolerant, but - potentially hot take - most people use it too early and as a means justify not engaging with differing opinions and thus just honestly being intolerant / generating echo chambers