SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by Azuma Hazuki
Tolerance Is Not A Moral Precept.
This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
On Tolerance - For Everyone Who Needs To Hear This
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 320 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Agnes' Law:
Almost everything in life is easier to get into than out of.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 01, @07:21AM (10 children)
There is no one-size-fits-all version of authoritarianism. It comes in many different forms. Sometimes it's the end result of a process that starts with good intentions. Other times, the issue is that the ends cannot justify the means.
Many liberals view conservatives as authoritarian. They are concerned that banning abortion is part of a slippery slope to roll back many other freedoms. They are concerned that many conservatives want to establish Christian principles in law. They are concerned that border security is already seriously violating people's rights.
Let's talk about border security. It's one thing to stop someone at an actual port of entry to verify that they're actually authorized to enter the country. It's reasonable to verify that they're not bringing contraband into the country and that they pay any duty that they owe. That's reasonable. However, border security has gone far beyond that, where Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) claims the authority to stop people and verify they are legally in the country within 100 miles of a border or port of entry. That's a massive expansion of power, especially when ports of entry include airports with inbound international flights. Border security is an important issue for many conservatives, but the means to accomplish it are authoritarian. You shouldn't be able to suspend the Constitution within 100 miles of a border or port of entry.
What's the correct response to an unjust law? What's the correct response when you view an authority as illegitimate?
Runaway's comments have made it very clear that he considers violence and mass murder an appropriate response. The means he supports to accomplish his goals are wrong. It's one thing when combatants are killed on a battlefield. But he goes far beyond killing people who are engaged in combat. He's said he would like to kill all progressives. Obviously he's not directly doing the killing, but he has stated he supports killing all progressives. That's mass murder. That's wrong, and it's not something you should be defending or trying to justify.
That is not the correct response to authoritarianism. There's a difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness. Civil disobedience means following the law except the portions of the law that are unjust. There is precedent for this throughout history. In the Bible, Jesus followed the law ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's.") except when it was unjust. Martin Luther King didn't ignore the law and violate it whenever he wanted. There was plenty of civil disobedience, but it involved refusing to follow laws that were unjust. I strongly support jury nullification, which is effectively another form of civil disobedience. Juries should refuse to convict people when the law is unjust or the legal process is unfair.
You have a problem with the law? Fine. There are lots of ways to change it. Vote out elected officials who create bad laws. Circulate petitions to get those laws on the ballot If you have standing, sue and request the courts strike down the law. If you're on a jury, use your power as a juror to nullify the law. Refuse to follow unjust laws. Exercise your freedom of speech to inform people and to protest against unjust laws. And yes, refusing to follow unjust laws is legitimate, too.
The example you cite is a legitimately elected president lawfully appointing an official, and that official lawfully exercising his authority to change a policy. Don't you think that's very different from the lawlessness Runaway is supporting?
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @01:31PM (9 children)
To the contrary, they all tend to be one-size-fits-all. They just disagree on implementation and authority.
Keep in mind the subject of this journal - the principle argument is that tolerance is a sort of "peace treaty" which when abrogated, implies that the other side(s) can and must act in response in ways that would normally be wrong morally. Runaway's statements fit in that constraint - if 50 million progressives are mass enslaving the rest of the US, then their killing though wrong is an appropriate response to the end of tolerance.
My take is that there are several ways this could play out. The various authoritarian-leaning groups may eventually cool down - my take is that a lot of present day turmoil is driven by the stress of labor competition from the developing world combined with poor policy responses in the US. Second, that one or more groups cross the line and start attacking each other for real. I think some of the organizers of the January 6 protest may have attempted to provoke law enforcement into a battle (which would have crossed the line into insurrection for me). The scale and duration of such a conflict is beyond me at present, but it could eventually result in a civil war.
This is a sound argument, but there's a but. "Tolerance is not a moral precept." To apply morality to it is to miss the point of the argument.
Instead of pointless complaining about a potential future conflict that probably won't follow a moral path, let's look at preventative maintenance. My take is that there's several big things that would forestall any sort of large scale conflict: maintain equal treatment under the law, especially by identifiable ethnicity - this helps prevent balkanization [wikipedia.org]; reduce corruption - prevents what's happening now in Russia, for example; reduce regulation - especially the misapplication of one-size-fits-all law (minimum wage laws have helped devastate Puerto Rico which is greatly poorer than mainland US, resulted in about half the population immigrating to the US) and laws that aggressively harm economic/societal progress (the pharmaceutical gamble is a good example of this, all that regulation and it's still a lottery ticket [soylentnews.org] whether you get a viable drug); and sensible compromises on big conflict topics (immigration, crime and police, taxation and government spending, meddling in schools and personal lives, etc).
Finally, people should chill a bit. Runaway didn't go anywhere with his argument for when killing 50 million liberals was justified. But it was in response to other needlessly provocative arguments. Too often I read arguments about various groups doing the mean things. After all, the very first sentence of the journal is:
There's not much point about complaining about tolerating the intolerance, when you're part of the problem. No tolerance existed in the first place so it couldn't be turned off for alleged intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @05:34PM (8 children)
^
That is why so few bother engaging khalliw, at the end he just repeats his opinion like he just proved simething.
"No tolerance existed in the first place so it couldn't be turned off for alleged intolerance."
He just lives in a different reality where the KKK are ackshually democrats and J6 was some rowdy protesters. Khallow is a pure propaganda account, no care for discussion beyond a platform to repost their screed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:02AM (7 children)
That's a big reason I quote. Here, the telling line is
The intolerance in that quote is self-evident. When someone is this foaming in the mouth at "conservatives", they're intolerant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @05:04PM (6 children)
Sulk all you want, you're the one avoiding simple facts so you can preserve your precious world view. Thought you weren't a conservative, better check your mask it seems to be slipping!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:31PM (5 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:48AM
The facts have been repeatedly mentioned, khallow. You have just consistently refused, or been unable, to recognize them. You have been spanked. You can stop trying to argue, now. You have lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:08PM (3 children)
Playing dumb is not a good look, just makes you look dumb or sociopathic. We all know you're not THAT dumb, so that leaves slightly dim sociopath.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:11PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:46PM (1 child)
Calling out fascists has no blowback, unless the fascists gain full power and then you'll start hunting down your detractors. You don't have yo go full fascist tho, so many options for you khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:33AM