The only intolerance that the tolerant won't tolerate are those who won't tolerate injustice

Thank you so much, just added it to my reading list!

An agreement made to be able to share each other's space

Mutual assurances of safety in exchange for mutual acceptance of limits in regards to your shared spaces

If you break one of these agreements to others then you lose the privileges that they offered you

By demanding the benefits of a society you commit to honoring what it requires of you to maintain it

Look at stuff like the rules applied by hikers in the wilderness. "leave no trace" and sharing resources. Then you filter out a ton of the complexities of cities to show the basics of what it is.

I don't understand why this fucking thing keeps getting posted. Of course a tolerant society wouldn't allow intolereance. If they did they wouldn't be a tolerant society.

But that's just people exploiting ambiguity, not a real problem with the principle. It's an implementation problem. And since every other alternative will be dependent on a similar definition with a threshold up define bad, this one can't be substantially worse.

You're counting wrong when you're talking about "most". If most people hated society you would not see cities larger than a few thousand people. People are annoyed by it, but they accept it because they know what they get in return (conservative propaganda is essentially about lying about what makes society good)

We already do partial tolerance. It's called fines instead of deportation, it's called reputation instead of tarring. What you're really looking for here is stronger cultural enforcement.

This is an asked and answered question.

Tolerance is not a moral stance, it is part of the social contract. Those that violate the social contract, like Nazis, are not protected by it. Paradox solved.

It's a question of what they're intolerant of. Innocent people, or malignant people?

There may still be ambiguous points, but they're much smaller and fewer.

One of these people replying here supports a regime that forcibly "reeducates" minorities and ban teaching of their languages, tolerating only a uniform national identity.

The irony, right?

implying that every republican is a nazi

You seem to be implying that not all Republicans are not Nazis.

10 years ago it was true that not all Republicans are Nazis. However, there has not been no resistance from every elected Republican to the Nazi movement within the party for far too long to be able to honestly make the claim that Republicanism is not Nazism.

I've always wonder. Why some people is so eager to make everyone their worst enemy.

I remember this joke, about the difference between a republican and a democrat:

There comes a new guy to the republican party and they ask them:

• Are tou against abortion?
• Yes I am.
• Good, are you pro christian?
• Yes I am.
• Good, do you hate the gays?
• No, I don't hate them.
• Don't worry, you'll get there, grab a beer mate!

Meanwhile other guy enters the Democratic party and they ask them:

• Are you agaist the Climate change?
• Yes
• Good, are you pro LGBT?
• Yes I am.
• Good. Are you in for taxing the rich?
• I'm not sure, maybe I don't believe in that.
• Get out of here you Nazi scum!

My point is that even as a political strategy we might be better off trying to find reasons on why other people is "one of us" instead of trying to find reasons on why they are the worst scum on earth.

Where do you live that this is obvious?

It's obvious to anyone that puts two seconds of thought into the subject. That's not saying that we live in a tolerant society.

My point is that even as a political strategy we might be better off trying to find reasons on why other people is “one of us” instead of trying to find reasons on why they are the worst scum on earth.

This is an extremely valid point you are making. It is why I oppose Democratic leaders like Gavin Newsom, Amy Acton, etc throwing trans people under the bus in an effort to get Republican voters.

The rest of your comment is incredibly anectdotal, and doesn't match with my lived reality, where local Republican leaders called me a pedophile because I hosted some drag shows. My experience has been that Republicans lead and convince with fear, as opposed to using intellectualism to get people to hate gay people. Sure, that convincing may be incremental, but I don't think the conversation you created in your head has ever happened in any reality.

Likewise, I have never seen a Democrat organization kick someone out for being opposed to taxing the rich, let alone call them a Nazi. In fact, most of the Democratic party's leadership at the national and at state levels oppose taxing the rich. That's why the DSA and similar parties/caucuses are gaining power within the Democratic party.

But let's be clear, the story you made up in your head, has never happened, despite how fucking erect I would get if it did happen. Your story is less believable than Candyland.

All Republicans are Nazis. Republicans may be misguided in why they are voting Republican, but that doesn't make them any less of a Nazi.

A Republican voter may be incredibly passionate about crashing the economy (9 of the past 10 economic recessions have been caused by Republicans), and they may be voting Republican because they want to crash the economy. But they doesn't absolve them of voting for ICE to terrorize communities.

We didn't give the 1940s Nazis a pass because they didn't know what that the wretched smell was bodies burning. We treated them exactly as who they were: Nazi scum.

Just as a note. The Allied powers gave most nazis a pass. Only 24 people were judged in the trials of Nuremberg. Most people who voted for Hitler's, even members of the Nazi party were not judged by it once they surrendered.

It was understood that most of them were probably not inherently evil, even when they were on the (very) wrong.

I would assume most republican voters would be the same. Most I know are on the wrong, but they are not inherently evil. They've been lied and manipulated, but deep inside they would probably just want to live happy peaceful lives like all of us.

republican or other type of nazi

The Republican party is currently openly supporting the idea of masked secret police disappearing people off the streets and sending them to concentration camps based on their race.

Yes, Republicans are Nazis. Yes, that includes the ones you're friendly with.

I have beef with both parties, so if that's what I were doing, I'd be saying it about a lot more than the third of the country that's openly decided to support Nazism. As far as everyone else, your argument still fails to persuade, because the statement "Republicans are a subtype of Nazi" is factually correct by any reasonable analysis. So no, even at that scale it isn't "everyone who doesn't think like me" it's "everyone supporting this plainly Nazi shit we're seeing daily in real time".

I've also seen a lot of the time the argument "if you have a table of 10 people sitting with 1 nazi, you have 10 nazis"

That's the crux of the paradox of tolerance. People who are tolerant of Nazis have the same net effect on society as Nazis themselves. Making no distinction between someone who openly supports throwing people into camps based only on their race and people who don't actually support it but are fine enough with it to have a friendly dinner with someone who does is again, the objectively correct position.

It sounds to me like you're either the Republican variety of Nazi or the "apolitical go-along-with-it" style of Nazi and you're looking for validation that you aren't a Nazi. You won't find that here. It's not because I disagree with you, it's because you're openly arguing for tolerance of Nazis.

Who's in charge of what is and is not "intolerant"?

that's the problem

For example, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are ALL intolerant faiths by their own admission.

You are kind of proving my point by wildly missing my point.

First here we are with the "you are a nazi" argument. You disagree with me, I'm automatically a nazi.

Second of all. If you read my comment again you'll clearly read that I advocate that tolerance is not the goal. I'm not saying we should "tolerate" nazis. I'm actually advocating for not tolerating not only nazis but a whole bunch of other people as well (I just don't feel the need to call them nazis for not tolerating them), because I think tolerance by itself is not the supreme golden rule that will make the society we live into the utopia we deserve.

But the point is that once you are true about this you should construct a more robust moral code that "nazis bad and everyone I don't like is a nazi", because that's just not going to get us anywhere. We need good people in our society. Not just thugs flying your favourite flag. And for that the definition of who stays and who don't shouldn't be a political tag. But the adherence to a robust moral code.

But obviously bad people who think they are good only because their political tag doesn't find this a very pleasant idea.

If intolerance is outlawed though, the terms must be very clear, lest the intolerant use those law against those who would use them against them. Intolerance of ideas is different than intolerance of people.

You disagree with me, I'm automatically a nazi.

No, I disagree with almost everyone.

You argue that people supporting masked secret police disappearing people based on race doesn't necessarily make them a Nazi, and that argument makes you a Nazi. It really is that simple.

You want to define "Nazi" as meaning only people following the exact political philosophy of the 1930s NSDAP, which is exactly how neonazis and other Nazi subtypes want it defined, as it keeps them from being banned for being Nazis.

"Nazi" to most people means anyone supporting a militarized ethnonationalism, and especially anyone supporting the use of state violence against designated out groups. For the most part that means Republicans and their supporters, along with Zionists and their supporters, plus assorted independent neonazi factions that don't have those kinds of numbers. But yes, it also includes anyone looking at what those groups are doing and arguing they aren't Nazis, or ignoring that they're Nazis for social or business reasons.

Im14andthisisdeep

Exactly. The “paradox” part disappears as soon as you start viewing things through the lens of a social contract. The intolerant are intentionally and repeatedly breaking the social contract, and are therefore not protected by it.

Tolerance is, by its very nature, limited. That's the whole point.

It isn't some sort of ideal, like empathy, where more is better (although there are people, mostly bigots, who want to convince us otherwise), instead it is the result of our moral and ethical positions.

We tolerate what we think is ok, we don't tolerate what we think isn't ok.

For example, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are ALL intolerant faiths by their own admission.

I know of a guy with a funny mustache who solves this problem by being intolerant of the... Hey wait a minute..

Worth noting that “the tolerant left” was a term coined by conservatives, specifically to try to guilt the left into accepting them (and giving them ammo to use when the left rejects them).

To be fair I get the idea of the comic.

It's more about how the word tolerance is a bad descriptor of what we're after, and honestly, the Right can tell. They know we CANT tolerate them, and jumping through hoops to justify the use of the WORD tolerance is absurd to me.

Obviously this isn't very important in the grand scheme, it just kinda annoys me

The Republican party is currently openly supporting the idea of masked secret police disappearing people off the streets and sending them to concentration camps based on their race.

Using your example, that means the Democrats are also Nazis; they've also used ICE (with masks) to deport millions of people at gunpoint for concentration camps and/or deportment.

Exact same organization. Same masks. Same camps. Millions of times.

So... if you're a Democrat, per your own example you are a variety of Nazi... in which case I agree with you.

Most people look back on Nazi Germany and see the populace as the Nazi scum they were. Most of the populace that wasn't a victim, including the ones that voted against Nazism, deserve this treatment, as they did not do enough to stop it.

My definition of Nazi in the modern sense of the world, (a neonazi we could say). Is that of a person who wants the state to have absolute power to enforce a reactionary society that will embrace a glorious past, exterminating every group of population that doesn't fit into this objective.

By that definition, no not all republicans are nazis, some are, of course, many even, but not all, not by far. And obviously, not all people who deny your arguments about who is a nazi automatically becomes a nazi.

It doesn't mean they are good people. But here is the thing, not every bad person is a nazi.

You might be a very bad person, and still not a nazi.

A problem with you way of seeing things, is that, is conveniently arbitrary. You can actually call absolutely anyone you like a nazi. That's a fast route for authoritarianism. Tou want to kill anyone? Easy, you say they are a nazi and their death is justified in your eyes.

That's just bad. You can have a system that defines who is good and who is not by such an arbitrary system.

Look at it this way. By your definition you are yourself a nazi. Because if I'm a nazi and I'm here you are sharing this space with a nazi, making yourself a nazi... See how easy is to label someone as a nazi by those definitions?

No. Our moral system should be stronger, should be able to accurately determine if a person is a good person or not based on their actions, without any chance of arbitrary labeling any person as bad by the convenience of an authoritarian figure.

It is also very well know how Hitler took advantage of the situation of Germany to manipulate its population and it's political system into giving him absolutely power.

When studying that period of time is one of the first things being studied, how Hitler managed to get into power even when he never really got majoritarian popular support.

Using your example, that means the Democrats are also Nazis; they've also used ICE (with masks) to deport millions of people at gunpoint for concentration camps and/or deportment.

No argument here, but that wasn't the point under discussion.

Your inability (or more likely refusal) to understand simple concepts doesn't invalidate those concepts.

There is nothing arbitrary about "people who support a militarized ethnostate" nor about "people who support state violence against a designated out group".

No part of the "ten Nazis at the table is about sharing space, it's about it ignoring their atrocities and being friendly with monsters.

If you want people not to say you're a Nazi, why don't you try just saying without any prevarication "masked secret police snatching people off the street because of their race is wrong, that's Nazi behavior and people who support it shouldn't be tolerated".

You won't. Because you clearly do support that kind of behavior.

It's funny how the word "tolerance" already implies that something is bad but you just act as if it's not. You wouldn't tolerate having enough food and water, you'd only tolerate the lack thereof.

Now you are just manipulating my arguments.

As I never denied that people who support a militarized ethostate is a nazi. Nor denying their atrocities.

What I say, and you deny is that not every person who voted republican support a militarized ethostate. Even if Trump is doing precisely that with their vote. Politicians lie and manipulate their voters all the time.

The people you are describing is clearly nazi, and at no point in any comments I said anything different.

What I've clearly said is that not every republican wants that. By my own knowledge of knowing republicans that doesn't want that. Believe or not, I know republicans that doesn't want secret police snatching people of the street because their race.

Here comes some important concept, the reality you and me see is not the same that other people see. You and I see ICE actuations and we do see the SS. But there are people that doesn't see that, some of them genuinely don't think that they are doing that. Are they on the wrong? Yes, but not because they are nazis, but because they are missinformed and manipulated.

A think that's very common in politics is the inability to see the crimes of "your party" and this happens to many republicans, they are just blind to the atrocities committed by Trump. Other see that atrocities, don't support them but still vote Trump for other reasons. Specially in a two party system people don't agree with 100% of what the party they vote do.

Still, they are on the wrong for that. And I'm not saying they are good people. Some of them even not being nazis are bad people. Some of them vote republicans because they hate gay folk or trans folk. By definition homophobia or transfobia is no nazism even if it is as bad as nazism.

The point you keep missing is that there is bad beyond nazism. And one of my main arguments is that that is precisely a very dangerous line of though because is a line of though that has a convenient ease to label truly good people as bad, and truly evil people as good. And that should never happen in a good moral system.

Also, people don't call me nazi. You are the only one who calls me that. As any rational person who talks to me 5 minutes about any topic can clearly seen what's my political leaning. So I'm not really worry.

Because its a bad faith argument.

Can you provide a better one?

I'm not sure which, so I'll give all three:

Cool guide:

Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

What Popper meant: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration

Tolerance is useful because it conveys the notion of restraining from persecuting someone for something you specifically and perhapse strongly dislike (as long as it doesnt cross certain lines). It makes it unacceptable to use state or social power without a reasoned argument for actual harm.

Tolerance is such a low barrier to pass - being as basic as "do nothing" - that is boundary acceptable even for the Right, because to it does not obligate anybody to act (in favor of others) and thus fits even those with a "what's in it for me" who will indeed do nothing if there's nothing in it for them whilst still being within the tolerant side of it.

So if someone says something racist or transphobic, I can kill them, right?

Or perhaps what constitutes a violation of the social contract and what constitutes an appropriate penalty is actually not simple.

To provide a concrete example; the Catholic church, as an organisation, doesn't like trans people. What would tolerance being denied to the Catholic church look like in your world?

What I say, and you deny is that not every person who voted republican support a militarized ethostate.

Given that the candidate they voted for was pretty open about his intentions to push for a militarized ethnostate, what you say suitable for fertilizing crops. At a bare minimum, every Republican Voter considers Nazism to be at least not a deal-breaker. And that brings us back to that table with 10 Nazis.

The point you keep missing is that there is bad beyond nazism.

No, I'm not missing that, it's just not relevant to your original argument (people who call out Nazis call everyone they disagree with a Nazi). Let's stay on topic here. Saying "people call everyone they disagree with a Nazi" and then giving two examples that are both totally valid callouts of Nazism is carrying Nazis' water. If you're making the same arguments against people calling out Nazis that Nazis make, then you're doing Nazis' work, regardless of what your intentions may have been.

Just a question for the fun on it. Those new nazis you create with you rethoric can also create new nazis?

So there are the original nazis, we all agree there are nazis. Then anyone you think is too close to them you said they are alzo nazis. The famous table with ten nazis.

Can those new nazis also create newer nazis if other people sit with them?

And this newer nazis can also create even newer nazis when other people happen to sit with them, or saying that them being friends to a person who is friend of a person who is friend of a person who voted for an orange nazi, that automatically create other nazi?

Where does the if you sit near a nazi you are a nazi ever stops? How degrees of proximity of the original nazi you consider enough so you don't think they are nazis?

For real. A person who is a friend of a person who is a friend of a person who voted for Trump? Nazi or not nazi?

Intelorance

Shhh Redditors really like this idea.

It's closer to the social contract of tolerance. If the contract is broken then the gloves are off, no one gives a damn about the universalist Christians but the Evangelicals are broadly hated on average, hell even my bloodthist is generally more socially acceptable than your average Evangelical since my focus is moreso directly on folks and entities who cause harm through secondary or primary effect.

Not "bad", just "not your preference." I tolerate reality TV like 90-Day Fiance but it's not objectively bad. And, subjectively, it's better than most reality TV I've seen.

I tolerate eating Shin ramyun noodles when I'd rather be eating pad thai.

Similarly, you can tolerate people's life choices (e.g. "polyamory, as a relationship choice, or smoking weed", not "being gay or being trans" which is someone's intrinsic self) even if they're not your preference. And that doesn't imply anything about the choice.

And, as an aside, I think political polarization has erased the place of "tolerance" in discourse. Because now, tolerance looks like acceptance when a bigot wants to murder someone for choosing different. You have to vocally, enthusiastically be an ally to counteract the polarized hatred from the other side, and maintain some semblance of the world making sense.

You forgot one:

• Act only according to maxims which you would have be universal

In other words, don't do something that you would be upset if someone else did.

I thought it was an ironic insult used to fool their base that the other side was irrational.

This doesn't work in everybody. There's a lot of things I like, and I would want everybody to do, that I recognize most rational people would never want.

If I followed this advice I would bother almost everybody I interact with.

The majority set the vibe. It's ugly, but there it is. If I reject this it will only cause friction in my life. So for people like me, a better quote is:

Act only according to maxims which those affected would have be universal

Intolerance adapts. Usually when that is the basis, they will be the one throwing the "you are intolerant, ergo we do not support you so we can sustain our tolerance" claims. Tolerance has to be able to at least identify what type of intolerance is being sanctioned, and to accept that it will always have some form of bias that will tag or not tag as intolerance that which different tolerance groups on the same "side" might.

It implies something has to be tolerated because it is outside of the realm of the familiarity you would otherwise personally accept innately. Not bad, just an admission of the fallibility of personal experience at being completely objective at everything.