The problem with your initial assertion is that it's fundamentally false. There isn't some holy rule that they won't risk their employees' careers or automate them out of a job.

They will make many of the same decisions any classic C suite would make but in a non verbalized way.

So you haven't worked there? I spent 12 years in a Japanese school and spent 2 years working in a Japanese Consulate, I'm very familiar with the work culture and how they view things.

As is often the case in an a point of view to be propagated facts and figures are ignored. Emotion and exaggeration are employed as a cheap and ready fix. Intolerance of opinion contrary to one’s own and weaponising outrage is both dangerous and also hilariously funny.

Eh, both could...

Neither does not tolerating silly opinions though...

> Believing that certain behaviors are sinful or immoral, likewise not intolerance. Nor is merely expressing such beliefs, however annoying, upsetting, or offensive they may be to those who hear them.

This is... not really applicable. Majority of hamartiology books would describe sin as something harmful among other things. As long as a state of being is touted as "harmful", persons of such state of being will be at risk of violence: it does more harm to tolerate it, than not to.

Moreover, if we were to necessitate tolerance of such bigotry by allowing it to be said, then we also have to tolerate the visceral anti-religious sentiment that such bigotry causes to begin with. It not only means, that in fact we logically could scorn bigotry with a bigoted attitude, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence. It may be the hallmark of a "free" society, but it's definitely not the characteristic of a stable one.

[deleted]

That was in response to be called domestic terrorists and an example of lefties or dems perception of republicans. Despite no evidence. Kinda reinforcing my point.

Bigotry is prejudice against an individual for a personally held group stereotype.

Hatred for a random straight white dude because they're overly represented as conservative for example.

Intolerance of people who hold a different opinion is the first step to setting up a Twitter account.

Not to be all "well ackshually.." , but Buddhism teaches neither duality nor non-duality. As is par for the course in Buddhism, it's more of a middle way between the two 😉

I know full well what they mean. I'm partially japanese and have already been in the country several times. I also have family there.

Frankly, your last paragraph is a rather hilarious admission that you don't really know much about the country (or its laws). Japanese work culture is brimming with bizarre issues (just google "japanese black companies"), but mass terminations that put workers at risk are not one of them. This also presents its own problems, of course (the ojisan who doesn't work is a classic), but that in no way changes my previous assertion:

>And frankly, to me it always seemed to be a much better mindset

How about the banner at the Texas GOP convention that said "We Are All Domestic Terrorists"?

And this is where the cultural breakdown happens lol. You read that and saw. "Oh, they respect their employees and because of their honor they won't automate them." When what he's really saying, and what a Japanese businessman is saying, is.

"By verbalizing this decision we lose face/honor." They all know that automation will decrease employment but you never acknowledge or verbalize the matter!

Like the poster gave as an example, you say "it reduces human error." They are intelligent, they know it also means decreasing needed employees, again, you just don't say the quiet part out loud.

Agreed that if OP were advocating for state violence against conservatives, he'd be acting out intolerance. That said, I think OP's personal intolerance would not invoke the paradox at all.

OP chooses not to associate with people OP sees as bad; further, OP tells others about how bad those people are on social media. None of these behaviors qualify as intolerance in the sense meant by these philosophers. (Unless OP is advocating for these others to be imprisoned simply for sharing their views, for example, which I don't think they are.)

From Rawls' perspective, unless the constitution of the state (written to preserve tolerance) is threatened, there's no need for the state to be "intolerant of the intolerant".

So, e.g., Trump's campaign of lies about election fraud and statements about how the constitution should be overthrown might put him on the wrong side of Rawls. By contrast, Ron DeSantis saying that African American history classes are racist is ludicrous but not "intolerant" in the sense of Rawls.

Your unsubstantiated claim of…

You mean like Ron DeSantis is doing to drag queens or trans people?

No evidence except their literal public policy and statements.

Yea I respect that a lot

Once again, conflating "intolerance" with things you don't agree with. The problem is advocating for the state to be intolerant of things you don't agree with, ie using force, ie violence, against them. At no point did this op say the people were violent, so the paradox of tolerance wouldn't apply. However, if OP advocates for the state to be violent towards people who express views he finds abhorrent, he would in fact be advocating for intolerance. Of course, OP opens with saying he IS intolerant, which ironically may invoke the paradox of tolerance, in that perhaps OP's potential actions should not be tolerated lol.

To explicitly not denigrate any individual point regarding the mentioned examples of intolerance from the political right, the utter void of acknowledgment of instances from politically liberal sources like Oberlin College v Gibson’s Bakery, the new Stanford campus speech code, UC Berkeley’s student newspaper Daily Californian and their overtly hypocritical stance on free speech, and just about everything that is Columbia University makes for just the most palpable irony when discussing Popper’s views on tolerance.

and the whole "always say maybe, never say no"

It makes sense that you'd make the personal choice not to tolerate bigoted people, particularly those who advocate for your elimination from society!

That said, I don't think the linked article is talking about this sort of personal (in)tolerance. That is to say, I don't think any of the authors would have much to say on the question of whether you, a private citizen, are obligated to sit by quietly while another private citizen says something you disagree with, especially if they're attacking your identity. You could defriend every political conservative you know without any objection from these philosophers.

Instead, I think the article is arguing that we shouldn't demand that the State prevent intolerant people from ever speaking in public. So, e.g., if Ron DeSantis, wanted to publicly oppose trans rights (which he does), the State should not forcefully silence him or meet him with violence.

You made the claim that republicans want to oppress and kill. With zero evidence. To try and justify your bigotry.

Republican governors were far more likely not to force (covid) mandates but left it up to the individuals to choose for themselves. Individual Liberty and smaller government.

How about we turn this around - can you name one thing Republicans have done in the last 20 years to promote “individual liberty” or “small government”?

So you can’t like I knew you couldn’t because it’s obviously bullshit.