ID: A scene from Legally Blonde of a conversation between Warner and Elle in the corridor at Harvard, in 4 panels:
-
Warner asks “What happened to the tolerant left?”
-
Elle replies, smiling “Who said we were tolerant?”
-
Warner continues “I thought you were supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs!”
-
Elle looks confused “Why would we tolerate bigotry, inequity, or oppression?”
deleted by creator
Damn Leftists! They ruined the Left!
Splitters!
Every time I hear or read that phrase, all I can think is “BITCH I NEVER SAID I WAS TOLERANT OF YOUR SHIT”
The whole idea that Tolerance is a Social Contract seems to be what works best: One is Tolerant towards others who are Tolerant and those who are not Tolerant are breaking the Social Contract of Tolerance and thus are not entitled to be the recipients of Tolerance from others.
Tolerance as a Principle doesn’t work well exactly because of the Paradox Of Tolerance which is that by Tolerating the Intolerant one is causing there to be less Tolerance since the Intolerant when their actions are tolerated will spread Intolerance (as painfully demonstrated in Present day America, especially with Trump).
The concept of a “social contract” is regularly used to deny rights to prisoners.
It’s not necessary, even to address the “paradox of tolerance”, it’s actively harmful, and it’s erroneous anyway (contracts are necessarily consensual[1], but exceptionally few people get to make a choice about the society they live in)
Yes, this criteria invalidates a lot of modern contracts in the US especially around tech, but this is largely a failure of the judicial system. Legislation still makes it clear that contracts must be consensual in the US and other western countries, and it often goes further in that they must be reciprocal. ↩︎
Removed by mod
I do have republican and conservative friends.
So you’ll tolerate a little bigotry, as a treat… 🙄
Yes. Outreach is an important part of helping people change their minds.
It’s the same reason you shouldn’t fuck with Jehovah’s Witnesses. By treating them badly, you increase the feeling of isolation they have towards broader society and shove them further into the clutches of the cult.
Removed by mod
You don’t get it. They are just voting for fascism, but they are not fascists themselves. It’s totally cool. Nothing to worry about.
For what it’s worth, a non zero amount of republicans and conservatives didn’t vote for Trump, probably in no small part due to the people in their life who remind them of their humanity. You might not be surprised to hear of estranged family becoming more radicalized by the right once they’ve been cut off. I have people in my life who are conservative and will never believe that abortion is acceptable, but I have been able to share stories of where it was medically necessary and they have changed their mind on supporting a total ban. Is that great? No, not really, but it’s certainly something. I don’t know that I’d call these people “friends” because I don’t really like them or share with them in the way I would my actual friends, but I have had them in my home. Unfortunately, changing hearts and minds requires a little buy in. It’s not always safe for everyone to do, and I get that, but people love to show stories of people becoming deradicalized while hating on people engaging in deradicalization. There are people out there who say “conservatives are good people they’re just misguided”, and I don’t really believe that, but I do believe they can BECOME good people. Obviously, some are a lost cause, but some can be pulled back to reality. I had a Hollywood is all trans/they’re hiding the true science (not a flat earther, just not a believer in the globe??) coworker I eventually turned into a socialist. That doesn’t happen overnight, and if they don’t at least consider you friendly, you’re not gonna see any movement.
Removed by mod
Did you mean to reply to me? Not sure what this has to do with my comment.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
For what it’s worth, a non zero amount of republicans and conservatives didn’t vote for Trump, probably in no small part due to the people in their life who remind them of their humanity. You might not be surprised to hear of estranged family becoming more radicalized by the right once they’ve been cut off. I have people in my life who are conservative and will never believe that abortion is acceptable, but I have been able to share stories of where it was medically necessary and they have changed their mind on supporting a total ban. Is that great? No, not really, but it’s certainly something. I don’t know that I’d call these people “friends” because I don’t really like them or share with them in the way I would my actual friends, but I have had them in my home. Unfortunately, changing hearts and minds requires a little buy in. It’s not always safe for everyone to do, and I get that, but people love to show stories of people becoming deradicalized while hating on people engaging in deradicalization. There are people out there who say “conservatives are good people they’re just misguided”, and I don’t really believe that, but I do believe they can BECOME good people. Obviously, some are a lost cause, but some can be pulled back to reality. I had a Hollywood is all trans/they’re hiding the true science (not a flat earther, just not a believer in the globe??) coworker I eventually turned into a socialist. That doesn’t happen overnight, and if they don’t at least consider you friendly, you’re not gonna see any movement.
Removed by mod
The left doesn’t even tolerate the left.
Fuck tolerance.
See? It’s that easy. No paradoxes required.
Honestly real talk for all my inclusion and belonging folks: we really gotta work on our vocab.
Was the term “tolerance” ever anything but confusing? In my lifetime I’ve only ever heard it used by conservatives dragging out this straw-man. Did “tolerance” once connote open-mindedness, graciousness, charitable judgment, acceptance/inclusion, or anything other than “weary endurance of something unpleasant?” Legit curious.
Similar examples include “consent” (sexual). Why are we pretending its primary non-figurative meaning isn’t legal or contractual when literally trying to say it’s the opposite? It has a strongly passive connotation, to acquiesce to a request, allow an event to occur, or go along with a plan — as in “tacit consent,” “consent form,” “consent to search,” and so forth. So it sounds gross, like “fine I guess you can do sex to me.” I know we tried to fix it with “enthusiastic consent” but seriously has anyone ever filled out a consent form with enthusiasm? What we really mean is active, reciprocal desire. The point is to give someone what they want if what they want is you, not to secure their consent to get what you want from them, so why the fuck do we insist on still using a word that’s in so many ways the opposite of what we mean?
I even think Crenshaw’s identity is confusing, because most people want to think of personal identity as something discovered or self-actualized, but intersectionality’s dependence on lived experience implies that to some extent it’s always something that happens to you. It’s how other people perceive you and the labels they give you that furnish these identities. But that probably sounds like a good thing if wearing those labels helped you bond with others similarly labeled, offering you a community or roots. Otherwise, calling these labels “identities” might sound like letting others define who you are instead of deciding for yourself. Gender identity for example is usually approached as an outward expression of one’s true self which can entirely reject the labels others give. But to ask someone “how do you identify” concerning something like ethnicity or race is not treated the same at all. To an outsider, these theoretical constructs might sound preposterous simply because we insisted on using the wrong words for our ideas, then overloading or bending their definitions to the point that a person needs a graduate seminar to actually parse the intended meaning.
Edit: to be clear, I’m only against the word choices, not the ideas. It’s because it feels like our messaging is hamstrung by insisting on using the wrong words as jargon with wildly different in-group definitions that to outsiders can make us sound inconsistent, confused, or at least difficult to understand. /rant
No, it was never confusing, the right’s propaganda engine ceased on it, called it confusing.
Whatever message we put out will be “mired” in confusion as long as the right media factory deems that a useful statement to make and their undereducated masses will just blindly agree.
For sure they seize on these terms constantly, but these pundits are opportunistic brawlers. They tend to pick words and phrases they know are easily misconstrued then just amplify the confusion.
Consider the reason why a bunch of Americans literally never understood the slogan “black lives matter.” Its punchiness as a chant at rallies was the juxtaposition of an extreme understatement with police brutality everyone was intimately aware of. The blunder was trying to use it to spread awareness of the violence (because without awareness of the violence its meaning is lost) so all the pundits had to do to discredit the movement was just… pan away from the violence.
I totally get ya. I don’t think any slogan is ever safe, well, Cops Disproportionately Kill Black People and nobody cares might have worked. but it lacks that je ne sais quoi.
Yeah I’m with you. Just want the downtrodden to prevail the way a footballer wants his team to win. Sorry for yelling in the locker room.
Ehhh it’s a good locker room to be in, and we are all in good company.
Cheers!
tolerance /tŏl′ər-əns/ noun
- The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
- Leeway for variation from a standard.
- The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
consent /kən-sĕnt′/ intransitive verb
- To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree: synonym: assent.
“consent to medical treatment; consent to going on a business trip; consent to see someone on short notice.” Similar: assent - To be of the same mind or opinion.
- To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur. Similar: consented
Being intolerant of society destroying behaviors seems exceptionally reasonable.
I dunno, society isn’t necessarily good. Sometimes it must be destroyed so something better can be built.
The problem is that ‘society’ is a nebulous concept which can and does condition people into behaviours which are truly awful and reprehensible but seen by ‘society’ as good, or needed to protect itself instead of the people it supposedly exists for.
It is often built on the backs of the opressed etc too, important to remember.
So yes, I am for destroying society if it nets positive change.
This misrepresents what tolerance is
We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out
We realize that hiding those people away doesn’t get rid of them, it just lets their views grow unchallenged
Lol, nope. You actually have it entirely backward.
Nazis can never win arguments. They can’t. Their ideology is not based on reality. It’s not based on material conditions. It’s not based on convincing others to join them with hard data or well reasoned positions. Nazis win people over by talking to them. They win people over because people who are privileged are opposed to any recognition of that, and above else want to continue to be privileged.
You will never lose a rational debate with a Nazi. It’s not really possible, because the nazi will never make rational arguments with you. Nazis instead will allude to conspiracies. They will allude to secret shadow societies that control everyone and that have the explicit goal of upending class hierarchy to take away privilege. Pay attention next time you see a Nazi argue something. See the language they use and see the way they position reality. Nazis lose rational debates. So they never have them to begin with.
Nazis will instead reach for the nearest loudest microphone and will scream their bigotry as loud as possible. They print newspapers, they do interviews, they famously were highly intertwined with radio networks, and so on. The method by which their ideology spreads is by subversion. It’s by creating fear of a secret other controlling everyone. The sad fact of the reality is that you cannot argue against that subversion. The argument isn’t rational to begin with, rationality cannot disprove it in the minds of those who believe it. A core part of the conspiracies are actually that anyone who argues against them is a part of the conspiracy. Any opposition to Nazism comes from those secret shadow society elements, and so any argument against it can be immediately dismissed.
Simply put, no. The marketplace of ideas is actually perfect for Nazis. If Nazis can’t create mass subversive fear of minorities then they cannot recruit. The KKK has largely been expelled from society for the past century (not entirely). You’d think that in a hundred years if, recruiting from the shadows was better for them, membership would be most of the country. Say what you will about American fascism the average voter definitely doesn’t think positively about the KKK.
Speaking with a Nazi posits that their ideology has the same value as yours. By engaging in a debate with a Nazi, which they won’t win but will instead use the opportunity to further spread Nazi ideology, you legitimate Nazism as a valid position to take. Now someone can be a Nazi, it’s okay to be one you can be a Nazi and still deserve the respect of an audience.
Nazis should be expelled from society in their entirety. Neoliberal propaganda has convinced you that all ideas have value. They do not. Killing minorities is inherently wrong. Spreading ideology that advocates the genocide of minorities is inherently wrong. Nazis should be met with a fist. Their media should be dismantled, and they should be imprisoned or expelled from society. Time and time again we arrive at this same place. When I wonder will anyone actually learn?
You’re wrong, and all you have to do to realise it is look around (hint: when you allow bigotry to exist in open society, aka, tolerate it, it will keep growing like the fucking cancer that it is).
The problem with current society is that many of those places are closed
Social media can filter out being called out (look at what elon did with twitter) or qanon
Fox News doesn’t have labels calling their propaganda false
We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out
This point is hugely important, but not for the reason that you intended.
You are mistaken on an essential aspect of your argument: calling out bigoted or discriminatory views out is the definition of not tolerating them. At the same time, the bigotry you’re describing - not permitting people to exist in open society - is exactly the reason we cannot tolerate those kind of views.
The essence of bigotry is that entire categories of individuals don’t deserve the same rights as others. People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue because they believe that their opponents don’t deserve the right to be part of the discussion.
One side is saying that we cannot tolerate these views. The other side is saying that they will not tolerate our humanity.
This isn’t a perspective that is subject to change by reason.
No, that’s an incorrect summation of one part of my argument.
The response to your comment is in my second sentence.
People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue
It’s not for them, it’s for other people that they would otherwise convince
I think you missed my point entirely.
I feel like your entire point boiled down to not being able to convince Nazis but neglected that the public is stupid and easy to manipulate
No Elons allowed
I am not sure if ‘tolerance’ is what we should be aiming for. More understanding and acceptance instead.
The bare minimum is tolerance.
What does tolerance mean?
bigotry, inequity, and oppression
That’s the literal opposite of DEI… Is this where they got it from? 🤯
Literally had this same chat with an old redpilled friend.
Geez copium much
