I think the paradox comes from the fact that we consider tolerance/intolerance as a static category, while it is practiced on "individual cases" i.e. over time. It's a bit like the Korean(?) Proverb: "if you come to my house you can do whatever you want... but if you do whatever you want, you are not invited ever again..." if you are intolerant you exclude yourself from the interactions of tolerant people who are kind enough to invite you to their "house" (tolerance)
I've tried putting this idea into another frame/model. Moral Particularism vs. Moral Universalism Tolerance is referred to as a universal moral principle (often paradoxically. [Consider the idea that being tolerant of transexuals often is accompanied by intolerance towards 'transphobes' of which there is probably a larger number. Therefore, this specific modern iteration of tolerance in this regard carries a higher net intolerance and is less utilitarian]) The theory that I am propounding is that the Moral Universalism that is touted regarding such things as tolerance, bodily autonomy, and so on (I mostly find this on the left) is actually in practice, morally particular to their preferred in group and is, in a Machievellian sense, cherry picked to achieve status and power. Rhetorically, people are referring to Universal principles that have been inculcated into the population as "good" but what is actually occuring is that, in the Schmittian sense, the essence of politics as "Us Vs Them" is being followed.
Because there's a difference between having an opinion. And denying people their own sovereignty. Tolerance means punishing a bully. When they steal from others. But a lot of Western societies have created an unnatural environment. Where this is brushed-off as "Free Speech."
You guys completly forgot where the word "tolerance" came from. Well like many people. So... tolerance comes from the latin word of tolerare which freely translates into "endure something". Tolerance doesn't mean i have to like what a other person does. I just have to accept it exists. This tolerance get to its limits at the point, where we cant endure anymore, what certain people do. There is a reason for our legal system. There is a reason why we dont want someone like a certain "Austrian Painter" as the most powerfull person in our countries anymore. Tolerance ends somewhere. But far after gender, skin color or sexuality. So tolerance is not to welcome every intolerant flat earther who is throwing handgranates in my backyard every morning, just to threaten to kill me. Something like this is illegal for good reason.
Nice deception. You presented this as if it's an open question, when in fact Popper answered exactly what he means by that statement and the solution to the paradox IN THE VERY NEXT LINE: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. *-In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
You have to discriminate between intolerant written words (thought), public utterances (speech) and violent damaging actions (behavior). Do you really imagine that just because your statement stumps the chimp that it would have evaded Popper? Doing the right thing is easy for those willing and wanting to do it. For everybody else it is impossible, improbable and impractical to deal with obvious truths and observable facts of life. Put that into your own words but find a way to say it.
To tolerate is to accept something that would normally not be acceptable to you. What would not be acceptable to you is something you cannot tolerate. People of independent thought will find things that can and cannot tolerate and create boundaries to protect themselves. Natural human defense mechanism. Because people do not process information precisely in the way others do and formulate their own tolerances and intolerances (what they will and will not accept), this only becomes a threat to when it goes against what has been primarily accepted as a collective view. This is when massive pressures are placed to socially and professionally castrate you into conformity, or worst, accusing you of disturbing the peace in which legal charges by the state May be drawn upon you should you think differently from the collective view. Because people have different values and ethos based on religious, spiritual philosophical, cultural, or experiential practices, it is inevitable that we will have things, beliefs, and lifestyles that others may or may not tolerate. Forced assimilation is forced tolerance onto a community or society and intolerance to others creates opposition, resentment, and hatred towards others, hatred of ourselves. Having a basis for what we believe is tolerable and intolerable is a matter of personal choice. To make that choice for someone else is to live in a totalitarian state.
I think where it fails is that tolerance is a preset defining intention. You don't extend it out, you extend only sympathy out. Empathy is understanding without taking a side. So tolerance is more about mental health than it is about anything social. Taking a stand from being mistreated can happen because of resting in tolerance. You should tolerate the concept of bob the intollerant but alot of others intolerance comes from just a low awareness. And if someone acts intolerant then you stand up for your self. A job like dishes with extra steps is intolerant to your convenient intentions. That doesn't mean you shouldn't tolerate it. You should because its your dishes and its a very important thing. Give your self some slack and avoid living in shame.
The confusion about his statement is mostly bc when he says "the tolerant will be destroyed" he's talking about pacifists. Not integrators living amongst nazis, or muslims living amongst gays and christians. He's not saying "be intolerant of the intolerant." He's saying "maximize tolerance, up until the point of physical threat of violence."
I would think that Popper's paradox of tolerance is only valid if the mentality is static and unable to learn and improve on it's own level. All that seems unreasonable, what is the goal within all human beings before the death, more hamburgers, wealth, wantonness, fossil oil use ..., do you learn from an excess' in wide swings of thought, probably yes, albeit more slowly at the expenditure of outward-bound tolerances, but personal mental tolerance is arguably the foremost evolutionary purpose which advances a shared planet? You don't get to poop in the shared drinking well without any consequences ... Restraint and a guiding hand to help be more productive to yourself and fellow humans may help the learning processes as it seems the only way to improve the mentality in a logical manner. Learning to evolve … imo
Suppose a hypothetical society in which intolerance exists, but is unpopular (if tolerance is a universal good, a society like this should be easy to find). In said society, intolerance can be fully tolerated without endangering wider tolerance, as the intolerant will be so few as to have no power.
But if the intolerance is allowed then the new kids born would be exposed to intolerant ideas. That could lead to the majority being taken over by these ideas, these intolerant people are spreading like a disease to take root in the society!?! Isn't this what everyone is so scared of.. that if nobody stands up to defend their black and white way of how life should be and how people should behave, that our personal visions of the future being better or at least as good as we think it could be or is, would be at great risk?
I wonder how to apply correctly this principle to illegal immigrants who don't integrate and recreate way of living they followed in a countries from which they escaped
What is to apply? If keeping their costumes don't hurt anyone why would they need to change it? Forcing others to adapt that is the problem which is exactly what sounds that you want to do
@@Gabe600 are you sure it is not hurting anyone? It's just absurd for me to hear that. Among many other dangerous factors, taking into account demographics, we can be outnumbered in our own countries and lose them if they keep their costumes....
@@Victor-lc3pw Well... You know... The thing where your argument is completly ironic, because in the end a country is a space on the map in the first place. This alone doesn't tell us anything. Not the skin color religion etc. nothing. Only a location of "This country border is there and there and even this changed a lot in history. Alone the place i was born. We were part of france, prussia, a own country and end up through a lot of changes as a full part of germany after WW2. The mentality of my hometown is more related to the dutch and less to what we consider german. If we seriously want play the "outnumbered in our own countries" card, every american has to leave the USA because they are a folk of immigrants their self. And if we play this card even further we cant stop at any time until every human is localised in Africa. What i want to say; The change of demography is a fluid part of the earths history. Everything changes one way or another, even things we want to stay the same. It is part of nature and economy. The biggest issue i have with your point is... Where is the problem, if more germans are not pale like a ghost anymore? Religion? If you ask me, we could forbid every religion. Because i think about god like Nietzsche. "God is dead."
@@WrestlingNele Your argument is called a reductio ad absurdum. I could go further and say that we are all mortal, so we shouldn't care about anything and just drink ourselves to death. But I don’t like such arguments. At the very least, because we and our friends have children, for whose future we must work. And we would like to leave them developed, cultured, and stable countries, not Sharia law. By your logic, should all the descendants of immigrants leave America? No, they are already the owners there. But the native Americans had it very hard. I wouldn’t want to repeat their fate. Don't forget that survival is the main purpose of life for all living things. I was born in Eastern Europe, and migrants from Africa and Muslim countries are quite willing to share their thoughts with me. Naive Europeans don’t even realize how hostile these people are towards them. And the number of migrants from these countries is growing rapidly. If current demographic trends continue, conflicts, riots, pogroms, and even religious wars in Europe are inevitable. And you say the problem is skin color. The problem is the bearers of hostile ideologies.
Hi what is meant by tolerance and intolerance in this case? Does it mean tolerance as in for example a racist white man tolerating the existence of black people in the same Country? Or does it mean tolerance as in a white man being happy for a multi ethnic society of equals?
This person, just like most people who bring up the paradox of tolerance, left out the second part of this quote where popper explains exactly what he means by intolerance. He means people who are unwilling to sit down and discuss different ideas and instead react violently to the mere attempt at bringing up a different idea. So it is more in line with someone who shows up to a political rally of the party they disagree with and starts attacking people.
"We must not tolerate the intolerant!" says the intolerant man. This right here is why I carry a gun. I don't need you to tolerate me, I'm going to do what the fuck I want.
The problem is what’s “intolerant.” These days the goal posts are moved so often. Take the LGBT community. First it was tolerance, than it was marriage equality, than it was acceptance with parades and shows of “ally” status. Now it’s validation. As in we have to validate a gay marriage with our services and publicly support it. That’s not tolerance. That’s way further. And disagreeing with that isn’t “intolerance.” It’s common sense.
@@skullthunder3181 lmao you’re a perfect example of what I’m talking about and missing the point. Special treatment isn’t equal treatment. If I call a cake shop and they can’t bake me a cake-I go to another cake shop. Why should it be any different for a gay person? Why do they need a gay cake from ANY and EVERY cakeshop? Why does the cakeshop owner’s religious beliefs take a back seat to the gay person’s unusual obsession with cake? Or take the example with that hockey player who didn’t participate in a gay pride event and got dragged over the coals. He stated he respects everyone but as an Eastern Orthodox Christian he didn’t want to participate in the parade. Why is that wrong? Why are his Christian beliefs less valid than a gay person’s need to be pegged or scissored?
I'm pretty sure the goal post was they live their lives and you don't get an opinion. Let's delve into the reason folks even think they get an opinion. The whole protection angle is a lie. Their existence isn't a danger to kids. The accusations that they're the pedos is being proven untrue by the pedos who were pointing fingers. Plus where was this so called protecting when rapists and pedos in power are given a pass. As long as they're white. Brock Turner scenario is the damn default setting and I've known that my entire life. Who do you think takes advantage of the child marriage laws in 40 states we don't seem to talk about? I can go on. You can't just gloss over violation of another human. It's super weird you even tried validating that position tbh. You're literally intolerance trying to pretend they're the intolerant ones. Smh
@@cald1421 if you go to a cake shop and the bakers refuse to bake you a cake because of some part of your identity (race, sex, religion, attraction, disability, language, etc.) thats discrimination, and is against the law. Yes, there are plenty of other places you can get a cake, but that doesn’t change the fact that the business doing that is objectively illegal.
@@thevenator3955 except it isn’t illegal. Maybe you should read the masterpiece cakeshop case. There’s discrimination and then there’s forcing people to actively support your life choices
It's not a paradox, it's a contradiction. And how is tolerance defined? No society tolerates everything. Also, tolerating the mere existence of different beliefs does not automatically cause those beliefs to predominate. A society under a paradigm of tolerating all types of political beliefs would not automatically or inevitably be replaced by "fascism." The tolerance paradigm would still have to be overthrown, assuming the tolerance regime was a legal structure, meaning free speech, freedom of assembly, so on. The only way to truly guarantee the tolerance regime would live on forever and never be overthrown would require the absence of democracy. It would require an authorities state. This would be the only guarantee.
like I said it's a balance, extreme tolerance allows for a system of oppression and extreme intolerance oppresses.... extremism is the same crap on both sides
@@plasmar1 very much this. The paradox described in the video is true when dealing with a hostile group that wants to silence/eradicate the "tolerant" group, but many on the left use this argument as a crutch so they don't have to bother even showing the slightest tolerance for anyone who doesn't see things 100% their way. Which of course, means the entire phrase needs to change since it requires absolutely no "tolerance" to force everyone to agree with you. A balance indeed.
@@bofasofa9399 you've called a 90 year old women a nazi because she attended a speech made by some gay liberal That's why we can't take you seriously You're just using these justifications for power Pinochet was right about leftists
@@gbrim20 ummm leftists are willing to engage with right wingers if they arent in bad fair. The both sides are bad is stupid when only one of those sides thinks that everyone who they dont like shouldnt exist dude. There are no serious leftists calling for genocide.
Wow, what a lame useless quote, tolerance is a virtue of those who can hear to all sides and analyze the positions, intolerance is the force impulse of those who refuse to hear to anyone and actively want to shut them down when they aren't harming anyone.
Zionism is a conviction and tolerance is a manipulative tactic to fool others. California tolerates the church of Satan but sends the entire police force to bother a homeless christian
Nobody is tolerant of everything anyway. I knew a man that said he was a pacifist and explained it to me. It bothered me because it felt like a person should take a stand about things. He was a real quiet guy. Everyone liked him. He would make a snack size bag of cheetohs last a month.. eat 2, paperclip the bag, lol.. It's not that people that are tolerant don't have convictions, they are just convicted to peace, love.. different things. I try to be tolerant, but there are times that I see no option but to stand against what I think is wrong. I usually just leave people and their opinions alone and acknowledge their thoughts. I feel like that pacifist was/is doing something right, because he seemed content.
It would be a patadox if tolerant people weren't ABLE to tolerate intolerant people. But not tolerating someone is a choice. Tolerant people **could** tolerate intolerant people, and could seek to change them by living a life of example, instead of intolerance. Sorry, but this "paradox" isn't a paradox at all; it's hypocrisy.
@@bocchithean-cap3404 just because you made bad experiences doesn't prove it being right.. religion has its place and should be respected - and I'm saying that not identifying with any religion really. Muslims can be peaceful
@@Ttangko_ Muslims literally believe in a Book that said killing apostates and LGBT people, s@x slaving, ped@phïlia is okay I'm an arabic exmuslim lived in an Islamic sharia country, and i won't even let my enemies live there
Unbeliveably bad take. This is just turning tolerance into the Prisoners Dilemma. Where you have to be intolerant to someone before they can do it back to you
Get the Philosophy Vibe - "Political Philosophy" - eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe9
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch." - Goldmember
❤
That was actually Nigel Powers IN Goldmember.
I think the paradox comes from the fact that we consider tolerance/intolerance as a static category, while it is practiced on "individual cases" i.e. over time. It's a bit like the Korean(?) Proverb: "if you come to my house you can do whatever you want... but if you do whatever you want, you are not invited ever again..." if you are intolerant you exclude yourself from the interactions of tolerant people who are kind enough to invite you to their "house" (tolerance)
I've tried putting this idea into another frame/model.
Moral Particularism vs. Moral Universalism
Tolerance is referred to as a universal moral principle (often paradoxically. [Consider the idea that being tolerant of transexuals often is accompanied by intolerance towards 'transphobes' of which there is probably a larger number. Therefore, this specific modern iteration of tolerance in this regard carries a higher net intolerance and is less utilitarian])
The theory that I am propounding is that the Moral Universalism that is touted regarding such things as tolerance, bodily autonomy, and so on (I mostly find this on the left) is actually in practice, morally particular to their preferred in group and is, in a Machievellian sense, cherry picked to achieve status and power.
Rhetorically, people are referring to Universal principles that have been inculcated into the population as "good" but what is actually occuring is that, in the Schmittian sense, the essence of politics as "Us Vs Them" is being followed.
@@GherkinPickleGroyper I agree...
@@GherkinPickleGroyper that's a lot of words to just say "We should ally with transphobes against trans people because there's more of them"
Because there's a difference between having an opinion. And denying people their own sovereignty.
Tolerance means punishing a bully. When they steal from others.
But a lot of Western societies have created an unnatural environment. Where this is brushed-off as "Free Speech."
You guys completly forgot where the word "tolerance" came from. Well like many people. So... tolerance comes from the latin word of tolerare which freely translates into "endure something". Tolerance doesn't mean i have to like what a other person does. I just have to accept it exists. This tolerance get to its limits at the point, where we cant endure anymore, what certain people do. There is a reason for our legal system. There is a reason why we dont want someone like a certain "Austrian Painter" as the most powerfull person in our countries anymore. Tolerance ends somewhere. But far after gender, skin color or sexuality. So tolerance is not to welcome every intolerant flat earther who is throwing handgranates in my backyard every morning, just to threaten to kill me. Something like this is illegal for good reason.
Nice deception. You presented this as if it's an open question, when in fact Popper answered exactly what he means by that statement and the solution to the paradox IN THE VERY NEXT LINE:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
*-In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.*
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
thanks
good name, and thanks
You have to discriminate between intolerant written words (thought), public utterances (speech) and violent damaging actions (behavior). Do you really imagine that just because your statement stumps the chimp that it would have evaded Popper? Doing the right thing is easy for those willing and wanting to do it. For everybody else it is impossible, improbable and impractical to deal with obvious truths and observable facts of life. Put that into your own words but find a way to say it.
@@36cmbr That's not his statement, it is Popper's.
To tolerate is to accept something that would normally not be acceptable to you. What would not be acceptable to you is something you cannot tolerate. People of independent thought will find things that can and cannot tolerate and create boundaries to protect themselves. Natural human defense mechanism. Because people do not process information precisely in the way others do and formulate their own tolerances and intolerances (what they will and will not accept), this only becomes a threat to when it goes against what has been primarily accepted as a collective view. This is when massive pressures are placed to socially and professionally castrate you into conformity, or worst, accusing you of disturbing the peace in which legal charges by the state May be drawn upon you should you think differently from the collective view. Because people have different values and ethos based on religious, spiritual philosophical, cultural, or experiential practices, it is inevitable that we will have things, beliefs, and lifestyles that others may or may not tolerate. Forced assimilation is forced tolerance onto a community or society and intolerance to others creates opposition, resentment, and hatred towards others, hatred of ourselves. Having a basis for what we believe is tolerable and intolerable is a matter of personal choice. To make that choice for someone else is to live in a totalitarian state.
Aye. EXACTLY where we are now.
Obviously all just a COINCIDENCE, though. Right?
I think where it fails is that tolerance is a preset defining intention. You don't extend it out, you extend only sympathy out. Empathy is understanding without taking a side.
So tolerance is more about mental health than it is about anything social. Taking a stand from being mistreated can happen because of resting in tolerance.
You should tolerate the concept of bob the intollerant but alot of others intolerance comes from just a low awareness. And if someone acts intolerant then you stand up for your self.
A job like dishes with extra steps is intolerant to your convenient intentions. That doesn't mean you shouldn't tolerate it. You should because its your dishes and its a very important thing. Give your self some slack and avoid living in shame.
The confusion about his statement is mostly bc when he says "the tolerant will be destroyed" he's talking about pacifists.
Not integrators living amongst nazis, or muslims living amongst gays and christians.
He's not saying "be intolerant of the intolerant."
He's saying "maximize tolerance, up until the point of physical threat of violence."
Good point. I think the same. :)
I would think that Popper's paradox of tolerance is only valid if the mentality is static and unable to learn and improve on it's own level. All that seems unreasonable, what is the goal within all human beings before the death, more hamburgers, wealth, wantonness, fossil oil use ..., do you learn from an excess' in wide swings of thought, probably yes, albeit more slowly at the expenditure of outward-bound tolerances, but personal mental tolerance is arguably the foremost evolutionary purpose which advances a shared planet? You don't get to poop in the shared drinking well without any consequences ... Restraint and a guiding hand to help be more productive to yourself and fellow humans may help the learning processes as it seems the only way to improve the mentality in a logical manner. Learning to evolve … imo
It’s not a paradox.
The toleration of intolerance is permissiveness.
Ask Europe about this theory
Suppose a hypothetical society in which intolerance exists, but is unpopular (if tolerance is a universal good, a society like this should be easy to find). In said society, intolerance can be fully tolerated without endangering wider tolerance, as the intolerant will be so few as to have no power.
But if the intolerance is allowed then the new kids born would be exposed to intolerant ideas. That could lead to the majority being taken over by these ideas, these intolerant people are spreading like a disease to take root in the society!?! Isn't this what everyone is so scared of.. that if nobody stands up to defend their black and white way of how life should be and how people should behave, that our personal visions of the future being better or at least as good as we think it could be or is, would be at great risk?
The intolerant will then aim to increase popularity of their ideas which is happening and working right now.
@@Pm3m_Dia exactly
The duality of how the scenario is framed limits the opinions for resolution. Change the framing of the scenario and so much possibility opens up.
"I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more." Popeye
I wonder how to apply correctly this principle to illegal immigrants who don't integrate and recreate way of living they followed in a countries from which they escaped
What is to apply? If keeping their costumes don't hurt anyone why would they need to change it? Forcing others to adapt that is the problem which is exactly what sounds that you want to do
@@Gabe600 are you sure it is not hurting anyone? It's just absurd for me to hear that. Among many other dangerous factors, taking into account demographics, we can be outnumbered in our own countries and lose them if they keep their costumes....
@@Victor-lc3pw Well... You know... The thing where your argument is completly ironic, because in the end a country is a space on the map in the first place. This alone doesn't tell us anything. Not the skin color religion etc. nothing. Only a location of "This country border is there and there and even this changed a lot in history. Alone the place i was born. We were part of france, prussia, a own country and end up through a lot of changes as a full part of germany after WW2. The mentality of my hometown is more related to the dutch and less to what we consider german.
If we seriously want play the "outnumbered in our own countries" card, every american has to leave the USA because they are a folk of immigrants their self. And if we play this card even further we cant stop at any time until every human is localised in Africa. What i want to say; The change of demography is a fluid part of the earths history. Everything changes one way or another, even things we want to stay the same. It is part of nature and economy.
The biggest issue i have with your point is... Where is the problem, if more germans are not pale like a ghost anymore? Religion? If you ask me, we could forbid every religion. Because i think about god like Nietzsche. "God is dead."
@@WrestlingNele Your argument is called a reductio ad absurdum. I could go further and say that we are all mortal, so we shouldn't care about anything and just drink ourselves to death.
But I don’t like such arguments. At the very least, because we and our friends have children, for whose future we must work. And we would like to leave them developed, cultured, and stable countries, not Sharia law.
By your logic, should all the descendants of immigrants leave America? No, they are already the owners there. But the native Americans had it very hard. I wouldn’t want to repeat their fate. Don't forget that survival is the main purpose of life for all living things.
I was born in Eastern Europe, and migrants from Africa and Muslim countries are quite willing to share their thoughts with me. Naive Europeans don’t even realize how hostile these people are towards them. And the number of migrants from these countries is growing rapidly. If current demographic trends continue, conflicts, riots, pogroms, and even religious wars in Europe are inevitable. And you say the problem is skin color. The problem is the bearers of hostile ideologies.
Hi what is meant by tolerance and intolerance in this case? Does it mean tolerance as in for example a racist white man tolerating the existence of black people in the same Country? Or does it mean tolerance as in a white man being happy for a multi ethnic society of equals?
This person, just like most people who bring up the paradox of tolerance, left out the second part of this quote where popper explains exactly what he means by intolerance. He means people who are unwilling to sit down and discuss different ideas and instead react violently to the mere attempt at bringing up a different idea. So it is more in line with someone who shows up to a political rally of the party they disagree with and starts attacking people.
I want these animations for my videos too 🥺❤️
You can pay somebody on Fiverr to do it for you.
"We must not tolerate the intolerant!" says the intolerant man. This right here is why I carry a gun. I don't need you to tolerate me, I'm going to do what the fuck I want.
Ban all GQP.
I wonder whether you make your husky voice intentionally or not. That is, whether it is your real voice or not.
"The most insidious intolerance is the dehumanization of those who don’t go along with the diktat of Tolerance"
The problem is what’s “intolerant.” These days the goal posts are moved so often. Take the LGBT community. First it was tolerance, than it was marriage equality, than it was acceptance with parades and shows of “ally” status. Now it’s validation. As in we have to validate a gay marriage with our services and publicly support it. That’s not tolerance. That’s way further. And disagreeing with that isn’t “intolerance.” It’s common sense.
Your comment makes no sense. "Lgbt people want to be treated the same as everybody else, it has gone too far" ok?
@@skullthunder3181 lmao you’re a perfect example of what I’m talking about and missing the point.
Special treatment isn’t equal treatment. If I call a cake shop and they can’t bake me a cake-I go to another cake shop. Why should it be any different for a gay person? Why do they need a gay cake from ANY and EVERY cakeshop? Why does the cakeshop owner’s religious beliefs take a back seat to the gay person’s unusual obsession with cake?
Or take the example with that hockey player who didn’t participate in a gay pride event and got dragged over the coals. He stated he respects everyone but as an Eastern Orthodox Christian he didn’t want to participate in the parade. Why is that wrong? Why are his Christian beliefs less valid than a gay person’s need to be pegged or scissored?
I'm pretty sure the goal post was they live their lives and you don't get an opinion.
Let's delve into the reason folks even think they get an opinion.
The whole protection angle is a lie.
Their existence isn't a danger to kids.
The accusations that they're the pedos is being proven untrue by the pedos who were pointing fingers.
Plus where was this so called protecting when rapists and pedos in power are given a pass. As long as they're white.
Brock Turner scenario is the damn default setting and I've known that my entire life.
Who do you think takes advantage of the child marriage laws in 40 states we don't seem to talk about?
I can go on.
You can't just gloss over violation of another human.
It's super weird you even tried validating that position tbh.
You're literally intolerance trying to pretend they're the intolerant ones.
Smh
@@cald1421 if you go to a cake shop and the bakers refuse to bake you a cake because of some part of your identity (race, sex, religion, attraction, disability, language, etc.) thats discrimination, and is against the law. Yes, there are plenty of other places you can get a cake, but that doesn’t change the fact that the business doing that is objectively illegal.
@@thevenator3955 except it isn’t illegal. Maybe you should read the masterpiece cakeshop case. There’s discrimination and then there’s forcing people to actively support your life choices
It's not a paradox, it's a contradiction. And how is tolerance defined? No society tolerates everything. Also, tolerating the mere existence of different beliefs does not automatically cause those beliefs to predominate.
A society under a paradigm of tolerating all types of political beliefs would not automatically or inevitably be replaced by "fascism." The tolerance paradigm would still have to be overthrown, assuming the tolerance regime was a legal structure, meaning free speech, freedom of assembly, so on.
The only way to truly guarantee the tolerance regime would live on forever and never be overthrown would require the absence of democracy. It would require an authorities state. This would be the only guarantee.
ok good.
That's not the full quote
66 comments and I can't see any of them. strange...
Yin and yang
extreme intolerance does the same thing; it's a balance
tell that to all of the insane right-wingers that say "haha look at the 'tolerant' left not being tolerant of neo-nazis"!!!
like I said it's a balance, extreme tolerance allows for a system of oppression and extreme intolerance oppresses.... extremism is the same crap on both sides
@@plasmar1 very much this. The paradox described in the video is true when dealing with a hostile group that wants to silence/eradicate the "tolerant" group, but many on the left use this argument as a crutch so they don't have to bother even showing the slightest tolerance for anyone who doesn't see things 100% their way. Which of course, means the entire phrase needs to change since it requires absolutely no "tolerance" to force everyone to agree with you. A balance indeed.
@@bofasofa9399 you've called a 90 year old women a nazi because she attended a speech made by some gay liberal
That's why we can't take you seriously
You're just using these justifications for power
Pinochet was right about leftists
@@gbrim20 ummm leftists are willing to engage with right wingers if they arent in bad fair. The both sides are bad is stupid when only one of those sides thinks that everyone who they dont like shouldnt exist dude. There are no serious leftists calling for genocide.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton
Wow, what a lame useless quote, tolerance is a virtue of those who can hear to all sides and analyze the positions, intolerance is the force impulse of those who refuse to hear to anyone and actively want to shut them down when they aren't harming anyone.
Zionism is a conviction and tolerance is a manipulative tactic to fool others. California tolerates the church of Satan but sends the entire police force to bother a homeless christian
Nobody is tolerant of everything anyway. I knew a man that said he was a pacifist and explained it to me. It bothered me because it felt like a person should take a stand about things. He was a real quiet guy. Everyone liked him. He would make a snack size bag of cheetohs last a month.. eat 2, paperclip the bag, lol..
It's not that people that are tolerant don't have convictions, they are just convicted to peace, love.. different things. I try to be tolerant, but there are times that I see no option but to stand against what I think is wrong. I usually just leave people and their opinions alone and acknowledge their thoughts. I feel like that pacifist was/is doing something right, because he seemed content.
sss
It would be a patadox if tolerant people weren't ABLE to tolerate intolerant people. But not tolerating someone is a choice. Tolerant people **could** tolerate intolerant people, and could seek to change them by living a life of example, instead of intolerance.
Sorry, but this "paradox" isn't a paradox at all; it's hypocrisy.
The line is called Islam
go outside, theres homies chill af being muslim
@@Ttangko_
lived as a Muslim
Currently in a muzzle country
No he's right
@@bocchithean-cap3404 just because you made bad experiences doesn't prove it being right.. religion has its place and should be respected - and I'm saying that not identifying with any religion really. Muslims can be peaceful
Lol out of all the religious people I've been around the most hateful are Evangelical Christians. Stfu with your racist bullshit.
@@Ttangko_
Muslims literally believe in a Book that said killing apostates and LGBT people, s@x slaving, ped@phïlia is okay
I'm an arabic exmuslim lived in an Islamic sharia country, and i won't even let my enemies live there
Pseudoscience
It’s philosophy, dude. It’s literally not science, it should just be common sense.
Unbeliveably bad take. This is just turning tolerance into the Prisoners Dilemma. Where you have to be intolerant to someone before they can do it back to you