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
| 321 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Bigamy is having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 01, @03:19AM
That's twice that you're used the argument with the form of:
1) X would be a reasonable action if Y is true
2) Y isn't even remotely true
3) Therefore, there is no threat of X
The problem is that Y doesn't actually have to be true for X to occur. If enough people believe that Y is true, whether it is or not, then they may cause X to occur anyway. Y is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.
To give you an example of why this is wrong, let's say the following:
X = the Soviet Union launched a nuclear attack against the United States
Y = the United States has launched a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union
This was a real problem during the Cold War. Even if there is exactly zero chance of the United States launching a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, it does not guarantee that the Soviet Union would not use nuclear weapons. In fact, there was a very real risk of a false alarm leading to an exchange of nuclear weapons. The false alarm could be the result of such things as misinterpreting radar data or equipment failure. The result would be that they assume they were under attack, initiate what they believe was a retaliatory nuclear strike, and actually end up starting a nuclear war.
That cause of the false alarm would be different in your version of this argument. Instead, there are bad actors who are actively trying to convince people that Y is true for their own personal gain such as political power or monetary profit. Fact checking has been ineffective, and there are a lot of people who distrust fact checkers. Even massive censorship cannot guarantee that people will not wrongly believe that Y is occurring. Moreover, actively trying to convince people that Y is false might actually cause people to believe that Y is true. There is no reliable way to completely prevent people from falsely believing Y.
Although Y is not true, the risk of a false alarm is very real. As long as that remains the case, if there are people who are willing and able to carry out X, then the threat of X is also very real. That is why X is a concern, and why your logic is flawed. People like Runaway would not be preparing for X if they did not already believe there was a high probability of Y being true. Because the risk of a false alarm of Y cannot be fully mitigated, then it is logical to also address X.
Incidentally, if you've read my responses to Runaway, you'll note that I am not only critical of his desire to carry out X, but also about his belief in Y. Both of these are mental health issues. I do not believe it is healthy for Runaway to want X to happen, and he has stated that he would like it to occur. His belief in Y, which is paranoid and inconsistent with reality, is also very concerning.
My point is that because it is impossible to fully mitigate that people will falsely believe Y, we must also take the threat of X seriously. You can fill in the blanks about what X and Y are.
EXTERMINATE