Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dukeimre t1_j5l7ux6 wrote

Reply to comment by adamdoesmusic in Argument for a more narrow understanding of the Paradox of Tolerance by doubtstack

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.

7

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.

3

adamdoesmusic t1_j5lb0gz wrote

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

12

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?

10

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.

4

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."

3