Submitted by doubtstack t3_10jdsyc in philosophy
adamdoesmusic t1_j5krs0u wrote
My response to this argument from conservatives is that I never said I was tolerant in the first place.
I’m not tolerant when it comes to them. Not a bit. Between their rampant, multilayered bigotry against black people, foreigners, gays, or trans folk, and their militant devotion to forcing anti-intellectualism down everyone’s throat in the form of religion or pseudoscientific grift, I see no reason to tolerate them at all. Besides, their authoritarian ideology openly exclaims the need for my elimination, so fuck ‘em all as far as I’m concerned!
It should be rendered painful to continue along with such a mindset, and such a “philosophy” (if you’d call it that) should be greatly discouraged at all costs.
uhvarlly_BigMouth t1_j5l2gtq wrote
Gay Hispanic man here, I fully agree. If I find out someone is Republican/conservative, I just distance myself. Even if they’re super nice to me, it’s like how can you sit here and show me kindness then vote for people who are calling gay people groomers? Those politicians and pundits have inspired so much hate that drag shows are getting shut down due to threats of violence and at time, groups coming in the area with WEAPONS. How can you give me kindness and then treat immigrants like they’re subhuman? The cognitive dissonance is real. I show them respect and treat them like I would treat anyone, but we’re not going to be hanging out or shooting the shit at all. I just don’t tolerate them in my personal life.
dukeimre t1_j5l7ux6 wrote
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.
Aym42 t1_j5l9hwk wrote
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.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5lb0gz wrote
You mean like Ron DeSantis is doing to drag queens or trans people?
logan2043099 t1_j5mesuy wrote
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?
dukeimre t1_j5lcsoz wrote
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.
Aym42 t1_j5migc9 wrote
>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."
[deleted] t1_j5lofgu wrote
[deleted]
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5kzbn9 wrote
Bigotry is intolerance for people who hold different opinions than oneself.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5l03g6 wrote
No it’s not, that’s a bullshit argument - and it definitely doesn’t cover being intolerant of an ideology whose entire principle is oppressing or eliminating anyone who doesn’t fit a specific set of traits.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5l0nta wrote
Your perception of ‘those people’ (and what you think they want) isn’t objective fact.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5l1bpi wrote
They pretty much come out and say who they are directly.
For my own safety, I’m going to believe them.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5l1v6u wrote
Yes because republicans say they want to oppress and eliminate. Gimme a break.
“I support smaller government, equality under law, and individual Liberty” and you hear “I want to oppress and/or kill all people of color and The Gays”
adamdoesmusic t1_j5l3q95 wrote
They don’t support smaller government or individual liberty, that’s absolute nonsense and you know it.
What kind of “individual liberty” does one have if they’re being forced to give birth for someone else’s religious reasons, or as an adolescent athlete, be subject to mandatory molestation to “make sure they’re not trans”?
What kind of small government devotes funds to going after drag shows when the country is spiraling into recession from their “non-intervention” healthcare policies during a pandemic - which included literally stealing medical supplies from healthcare providers and then ransoming them back to the market for profit?
You’ve fashioned an entire policy wing around going after anti-racism, whether it be frothing up the fanbase with stoked fears about “CRT” or rabid dismissal of anything “woke” - a term that essentially means “aware of racism and injustice.” You couldn’t be more obvious about your intentions if y’all came out and screamed the N word in public, although many republican argue suspiciously hard to have the “1st amendment right” to do specifically this and not much else.
The only places where the Republicans and their fanbase aren’t trying to marginalize or straight up eliminate someone (whether it be the poor, the gays, trans people, the educated, black people, Hispanics, Jewish people, Asians) is when they’re trying to corruptly funnel even more money into the pockets of the ultra rich.
We hear “I want to oppress and/or kill all the gays/nonwhites/trans people/educators” because that’s what y’all SAY, over and over again. You seem upset that people finally listened.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5l4uim wrote
Can you link one single example of one saying they what you claim?
adamdoesmusic t1_j5l5mow wrote
Of course I could, but the fact is you’re not asking because you actually want a source. You know damn well this is your ideology, you’re proud of it but you know you can’t be public about it. I’ve read what y’all say when you don’t think anyone on the outside is listening. You know your ideology is abhorrent, you know it calls for the elimination of “undesirables” and the implementation of an authoritarian regime. I’m not here for gotcha quotes or to play your stupid games, I’m here to support the side that’s gonna stop you.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5l5sbl wrote
So you can’t like I knew you couldn’t because it’s obviously bullshit.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5l5wxm wrote
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”?
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5l6as1 wrote
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.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5l9wjg wrote
No evidence except their literal public policy and statements.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5lc2ot wrote
Your unsubstantiated claim of…
logan2043099 t1_j5mgsfk wrote
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.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5mhgmp wrote
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).
ReplyingToFuckwits t1_j5md9qw wrote
Facetious on many, many levels.
First of all, you're demanding they give examples of openly "mask-off" comments as proof when that's simply not how it works.
The far-right knows its a losing strategy to just come out and admit you're a neo-nazi. Your political opinions get immediately dismissed because there's no doubt about where those opinions come from.
That's why people who had been known as white supremacists for years suddenly became "alt-right" in a coordinated rebranding.
But one swastika-filled rally and domestic terrorist act against counter protesters later and suddenly the "alt-right" vanished too. Now they're just "Republicans" or "Trump supporters".
They still used the same talking points as neo-nazis did 20 years ago. They still had the same figureheads. Hell, even their favourite insults like "cuck" were lifted straight from far-right forums where it was used to brand people as "race traitors", especially during their "raids" where they tried to take over other platforms to spread their propaganda.
But they'd finally learned not to give themselves a name. To keep the mask on at all times, so they could always have plausible deniability. So they could claim that "just because they'd done some nazi things, it didn't mean they were a nazi".
When you demand examples of prominent Republicans going mask off, you're either fully aware that they're not that stupid anymore, or you've fallen for the ruse yourself.
Because the person you're arguing with is absolutely right; The mainstream Republican party is riddled with white supremacists and their political platform has been focused pushing far-right goals, starting with the softest targets.
Attacking women's rights (especially when it comes to sex) because Christian fundamentalists will shield them.
Demonising the LGBT+ community as "groomers" and pedophiles, while also applauding violence against actual pedos, in an awkward slight of hand. Attacking the trans community because they're the most vulnerable and have the smallest voice to fight back with.
Openly opposing any ideas that undermine far-right ideals, from accusing everything of being "woke" online, to literally throwing banned books into a fire.
All of these are examples of exactly what they're claiming and we both know you're going to dismiss each and every one on the basis that nobody involved prefixed it with a press conference to announce "Actually, I do think we should genocide minorities".
But you're likely thrilled that this time, you don't have to.
It means the second reactionary strategy online is working: suck the oxygen out of every room with your misinformation, sealioning and constantly shifting goalposts, then claim victory when people don't engage.
The reality is that nobody owes you a long, nuanced post about why you (and the people you're leaping to the defense of) are bad people.
They're fully aware that it won't change your personality one iota because if you could actually be convinced you were wrong, you wouldn't be you in the first place.
But there is one (and only one) valuable thing about engaging.
When a teenager or other vulnerable person wanders into this thread and sees you crowing about an intellectual triumph that never actually happened, they don't mistake you for someone smart or cool.
Because people online have confused contrarianism and abuse with intelligence and charisma since the dawn of the modern skeptic movement.
It's likely how we ended up with a philosophy sub full of apologists and reactionaries in the first place.
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5metnl wrote
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.
ReplyingToFuckwits t1_j5mvdeh wrote
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".
djinnisequoia t1_j5liqw8 wrote
How about the banner at the Texas GOP convention that said "We Are All Domestic Terrorists"?
WhoMeJenJen t1_j5lng10 wrote
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.
TNPossum t1_j5pdhp0 wrote
>be subject to mandatory molestation to “make sure they’re not trans”?
Ok dude. I was with you up until that point. Nobody was ever suggesting what you are accusing them of. When that was being discussed, all that would have happened or been needed was to check their physical that they had to turn in from the doctor, which would have already had their sex on it. There was not going to be lockerroom examinations.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5pe285 wrote
“Nobody was ever suggesting”
Ok dude, yes. They explicitly were. Ohio tried to pass it, several other states were too. They said it was about “fairness in sports” and the rule would be that if your kid wanted to play sports, your kid would have to be “digitally examined” (as in finger not computer) by a “doctor” selected by the coaches.
This is where the republicans are at today.
Nothing I said was hyperbole.
TNPossum t1_j5pfwmg wrote
My brother in Christ, there was no such thing.
Here is the bill from Ohio
>(C) If a participant's sex is disputed, the participant shall establish the participant's sex by presenting a signed physician's statement indicating the participant's sex based upon only the following: >(1) The participant's internal and external reproductive anatomy; > (2) The participant's normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone; >(3) An analysis of the participant's genetic makeup.
In other words. The doctor's physical that they had to do to play in school sports in the first place would have confirmed their physical sex.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5pg232 wrote
…so they’d have to be molested by a “doctor.”
It’s okay if this person finger rapes your 11 year old as long as they’re an MD?
TNPossum t1_j5pgjsj wrote
No...
-
physical sex is already in these kids medical records. No further examination needed.
-
pelvic examinations are already a normal part of physical examinations for children because doctors make sure kids are developing regularly.
Nowhere does it mention a "digital examination" at all.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5ph5tx wrote
Then you weren’t following the hearings…
Either way, the fact that you’re defending this trash AT ALL means you mostly believe in it.
I would never let some random school doctor - who would be selected for this “exam” - to give my kid a physical - especially after what we know about the sorts of people who rush to take those positions.
Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals? Ah yea I’m sure they’re just in it for the medical legitimacy of it all, especially seeing as the right wingers who made this policy can’t seem to keep their fingers or dicks out of kids at church or scouts.
TNPossum t1_j5pj3du wrote
No. I don't give a damn if a trans kid plays in school sports because school sports are an extremely trivial matter to worry about. I just think that with all of the other horrible things you can peg Republicans for that's actually true, falsely accusing them of hiring anti-trans doctors to molest children is unnecessary.
>would never let some random school doctor -
It doesn’t say a school doctor. It would be your child's pediatrition. It would be your choice which doctor.
>Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals?
Oh.... I don't know... a pediatrition? You know... the people who went to medical school and specialized in child development. Which includes sexual development.
Dude. It's very clear because of some other very reasonable concerns that you've become accustomed to assuming the worst and never questioning things when it comes to Republicans. But I am literally giving you the bill. The bill that was passed from the place that you referenced. And does not mention forced digital examinations, coach picked doctors, or locker room examinations. All it requires is a physicians statement, which you can readily get from your kids' pediatrition.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5pqko1 wrote
It appears that, after massive outcry, the portion I was talking about was dropped.
Your party still proposed it, though.
TNPossum t1_j5prtvf wrote
>Your party still proposed it, though.
Not my party, bud. And the fact that I have to say that again pretty much sums up the issue.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5pvao8 wrote
If they’re not yours, why defend them? This isn’t just some case of misunderstanding or disagreement on policy, like whether we should tax cigarettes or have more carpool lanes.
This is a mainstream political party operating under the “conservatism” umbrella openly calling to have children molested as they make repeated, organized efforts to marginalize minorities and suppress dissent while platforming known white supremacists and far-right leaders.
TNPossum t1_j5pwmqk wrote
>If they’re not yours, why defend them?
Because the truth matters. I do not like Republicans, but I criticize them on what they're actually doing.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5r3at0 wrote
You might wanna update yourself on what they’re actually doing.
XiphosAletheria t1_j5m3ddl wrote
What you are doing is called "straw-manning" your opponents. This is a time-honored tradition in politics, but what is different now is that it used to be done cynically, as a way to fool others. But you seem to be sincere, meaning you have basically deluded yourself.
adamdoesmusic t1_j5nrdet wrote
It’s not straw-manning - the vast majority of modern conservatives behave and believe exactly as I described, or worse. It’s an entire political movement based around antisocial and hateful tendencies, and I’m describing it exactly how it is. How is that straw-manning?
Alphaplague t1_j5lluo1 wrote
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments