> in this case, having a discriminatory ideology isn't an immutable trait.

Except it sort of is. At least, you can't just change your political beliefs, or any belief really, through an act of will. Beliefs may change on their own, of course, but inasmuch as they can't be changed by your choice, they probably qualify as "immutable" in the way you seem to be trying to get at.

You say those who are already acting like a dick will now feel “justified.” But it seems to me that they already feel justified since as we can see they are already doing it. And tbh who cares if a dick acting like a dick “feels” justified. It should be about wether he IS justified. And using the example from the comic, there is no justification for being a nazi.

As a lefty i think your examples are fair and worth bringing up. It seems folks assume because you pointed out intolerance on the left you must lean right and therefore you are downvoted?

The right has been radicalized imo beyond the left, but it’s fair to point out that the left has many examples (particularly on college campuses) of unjustifiable harmful intolerance. the idea that just the right has acted in ways that make people feel justified in their intolerance is narrow.

as op points out the intolerance on either side is not supported by The Paradox of Tolerance.

“harm” is the right word here. Negative impacts (most) do not qualify as violence. IMO “violence”has been overused and abused in our current discourse and often results in more harm and likely alienates people who may otherwise be amenable to the conversation.

[deleted]

You're almost certainly familiar with the phrase "When someone tells you who they are, believe them".

But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you haven't heard that phrase and that any kind of difficulty you have with figurative speech isn't intentional...

Do you really want to hang your entire defense on "No but they haven't literally said it"?

We've seen the photos. We've read their comments. . We know all about their memes, manifestos and militias. Who exactly are you hoping to fool with semantics?

The most charitable interpretation of your comments I could make is "someone who can't hear the dog whistle so insists the sound doesn't exist".

Absolute Tolerance, like most any Absolute, inevitably leads to disaster. Why would anyone ever think tolerance should be absolute? Once this silly notion is addressed, there is no paradox at all: free speech for all who support free speech and none for those that would destroy it.

When does

"Who hell would vote for Biden, he is terrible and Trump is amazing"

"No one I know, this is fishy"

"Clearly this election was rigged, no one would vote for Biden, this is our democracy being stolen by Washington Elites!"

"Someone should do something about it"

"We should tell everyone about this, encourage others to protest, railing about this online and on TV"

"We should protest to pressure the politicians to throw out the fake results and put Trump in"

"They disregarded our votes, why would they listen to our protest, I think we need to go in"

riot/coup/treason time

Cross the line?

(Yes my impression of how Trump supporters talk isn't very good - I am not a writer)

The thing is, if you genuinely believe your democracy is usurped. And the authorities are complicit. And votes are meaningless. Isn't protest and possibly even violence the next logical steps?

If a president refused to step down at the end of their term and the authorities backed him - wouldn't overthrowing them be logical to most people.

Once people are convinced their democratic rights are gone and the government is corrupt. The next steps are obvious.

Trumps supporters were convinced the election was rigged. Given that the fake information is believed - the next step is inevitable.

It is only preventable by having everyone educated, mentally stable, informed and open minded so they can work out what press is bullshit.

If you have angry, living in closed bubbles and misinformed people - the outcome of Trump/Fox/whoever's rhetoric is inevitable.

The only way to prevent it without redesigning society and the media is to prevent the spread of intolerant views before they lead to violence.

Or we go with the existing option of let people fuck up and then arrest afterwards. Which in my mind is horribly probably a better option than excessive censorship and thought police.

Given that we know advertising and propaganda are effective (hence why they are one of the world's biggest industries) - should those who spread the lies be held accountable like a person shouting fire in a crowded cinema?

Too often I see people misuse the term "intolerance"; come to think of it, I believe I see it misused more often than used correctly. To tolerate something is to allow it to exist without interference. The VAST majority of people just don't give enough of a shit to actually interfere with other people peaceably living their lives on account of them have differing views on a given issue or leading a lifestyle they find reprehensible; it is an extremely small minority of people anywhere on the sociopolitical spectrum who are actually, truly intolerant of others.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

While double negatives hurt my brain, I'm hoping someone can tell me if my different explanation that kind of ends up with a similar conclusion holds up in any way.

The way I've been thinking about it is that advocating for tolerance was never about advocating for tolerance in every context. To me, it's more of a shorthand to say "tolerance toward those who have immutable traits that they can't control." There would thus be no contradiction to be intolerant toward discriminatory ideologies (in this case, having a discriminatory ideology isn't an immutable trait).

"What is honored in a country is cultivated there" - Plato

[deleted]

With unicorn panties on the table, what were they to do? I’d do a lot of dishonorable things for unicorn panties. (Who am I kidding? I HAVE done dishonorable things for unicorn panties.)

Joking aside, I always try to be careful judging individuals by group tendencies. Doing otherwise is a slippery slope.

>It should be rendered painful to continue along with such a mindset

I believe there is at least some grey in the area here, if one believes conversion therapy for instance is intolerance. But yeah, we're in agreement, I should have been more clear that we're in agreement that bigotry does not equal or equate to intolerance in the "Paradox of Tolerance."

>animals are super important to me

Seems like you find the debate important, then?

Definitely not a perfect response from all reps but far more likely to lean that way than dems. I don’t think the individual should handle the entire pandemic, just on personal choices like if they can go work, wear masks, and vaccines (that are not even proven to provide immunity).

>You should read your own link, because you can get fired after showing financial loss, and I'm well aware of Japanese labor laws. One of my main jobs was facilitating work visas for foreign nationals. But this is all besides the point, nowhere did I posit that mass layoffs are normal.

Re-read the entire conversation. You claimed a " cultural breakdown" in a discussion regarding japanese companies not wanting to replace an enormous amount of workers by using software. Getting fired due to financial losses is another matter entirely and, even then, it's not an easy measure, and this is also mentioned in the link.

>What I am saying and what you can't seem to comprehend is that Japanese C suites aren't avoiding increasing efficiency and automation in some honor based care for their employees. At least not any more than western ones, what they care about is not verbalizing that dishonor. Even among equals.

As I've said from my original post, I know very well what they mean. The point here is that terminating workers en masse is seem as a socially unacceptable measure, and that is reflected in how companies approach pitches. And, once again, I consider that a much more admirable mindset. I'm not calling anybody a saint, I'm saying societal structures there are different in this regard, and I consider that a positive thing.

I know I'm repeating myself, but despite your claims that you are an "expert" in japanese matters, this conversation makes it quite likely that you are either not as informed as you claim to be or simply not taking the time to properly read and interpret what is being posted.

I live in Texas and we had mandatory lock downs and cops pulling people over to make sure they were following it. Where's the individual liberty and small government? Covid was also an international pandemic and not something that should be left to the individual.

I wonder if this explains why my foreign colleague had no honor.

So then if a Japanese company has layoffs how do they usually frame that message?

People will be people. Faced with human nature, for what it is, all we can do is respond to it. There are no unalienable rights, only subjective, competing interests. Their rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. I have no obligation to others, if it disadvantages myself

He said they literally say it. That they want to oppress and eliminate(kill). And he said it more than once. Go on and look.

Books are being banned in schools in Florida if they even mention anything considered to be against the beliefs of conservatives with the threat of state violence should teachers non comply. How is this not the kind of intolerance that we must not tolerate?

I mean, part of it is surely about how you (one) want to be, right? You can be a dick to those who are a dick to you, but then those people will just feel justified in their dickishness, and you will have developed the habit of behaving badly yourself.