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
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