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.
Life is not for everyone.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Friday April 28, @05:51PM
I think perhaps this can be generalized to "there should be no absolute" or perhaps "There is only one absolute, which is not well defined".
The first generalization is easier to comprehend. In the case of tolerance, absolute tolerance would lead you to tolerate evil so we can, on that basis, reject tolerance as an absolute.
Now when you start applying this to other virtues it gets tricky. Like love for example. We generally regard it as a virtue, but if you try to imagine absolute love you first have to define love, and that gets tricky. In the Bible we have "there is no greater love than a man lays down his life for a friend" or something like that; but by no means is sacrifice a perfect proxy for love.
So that leads us to the 2nd generalization -- that there is an absolute virtue, we just can't define it.
IMHO, when religion does good, it's in the attempt to define and attain such an absolute virtue and even the irreligious recognize it as good. OTOH, when religion fails it's often because they chose a virtue and made in an absolute. e.g., absolute obedience. First, it's arguably not even a virtue, and even when it is, it creates opportunities for abuse.
Now send me $25, because I just told you obedience is a virtue.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.