The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
@jpanzer @LadyA @lbruno @nazgul
I had to look up the "unclean hands doctrine:"
--
An equitable defense that bars relief to a party who has engaged in inequitable behavior (including fraud, deceit, unconscionability or bad faith) related to the subject matter of that party's claim.
--
But yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the new concept!
@ZhiZhu @LadyA @lbruno @nazgul So, what does such a breach of contract give rational, fair-minded people leave to do?
I gotta say, we seem to be on a continuum that begins with this perfectly acceptable keyboard-warrior debate, but escalates to eventual overt combat using guns, knives, and fists instead of words.
American blood spilled in fear and hatred. This is a terrifying prospect which I'm not prepared for, but seems to be an increasingly realistic destination.
@randywaterhouse @LadyA @nazgul @ZhiZhu @lbruno "What does such a breach of contract give people leave to do?"
Fairly obviously: it's a mandate for the [minimum necessary] use of whatever force is required to defend the social contract. Be proportionate and measured, but don't be a doormat.
Note that this isn't an American problem, it's a global one this decade.
@cstross @randywaterhouse @LadyA @nazgul @ZhiZhu @lbruno
Essentially, enforcement of the broken social contract is where morality comes into play. It's an echo of the shift in justice systems from the "bloody code" era of execution as the only punishment to modern systems.
Nothing can eliminate morality, and I reckon the contract model has to be built around consent, which is part of the morality. And can be argued about.
@cstross @randywaterhouse @LadyA @nazgul @ZhiZhu @lbruno
An example question: can we consent to permanent harm?
This bear looks at the stump of his trans-tibial amputation, and notes it was his own leg. He consented. It wasn't somebody else's leg.
There are people who, through age or mental deficiencies, we don't trust to make a choice. But that is a power issue and "Power tends to corrupt". Lord Acton's warning has to be part of of it.
@cstross @randywaterhouse @LadyA @nazgul @ZhiZhu @lbruno
So we have reached Lord Acton, and the tendency of power to corrupt. That brings us into issues of harm and necessity and sometimes blatant abuses of power to invent excuses.
Stockholm Syndrome is an example of such lies. We can see similar instances attached to transsexualism, and the object is P-O-W-E-R!
@Wolf_Baginski @cstross @randywaterhouse @LadyA @nazgul @ZhiZhu @lbruno Eliminating morality is an appropriate first step.
Morals are personal and do not scale. Policy cannot be moral, and becomes nigh-infinitely more difficult when you try to make it moral. (Also, pyramids of skulls; they were sinners.)
Define, strictly materially, without reference to even implicit abstract feels, the desired end state. Least sufficient means to get there.
This can produce effective policy.
@Wolf_Baginski @cstross @randywaterhouse @LadyA @nazgul @ZhiZhu @lbruno The right talks about morals incessantly BECAUSE they can't work.
They know that they're really after a simple material objective -- owning everything and everyone not in the in-group -- and how they get there is immaterial. "Don't engage with rationalizations" is a helpful principle.
Personal codes of conduct and morals are fine; it's thinking you can get general agreement that fails. Not failing is better.
@ZhiZhu This! I've been linking this article, every time someone's brought of the so called "tolerance paradox".
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
Photo via Wikimedia Commons In the past few years, when far-right nationalists are banned from social media, violent extremists face boycotts, or institutions refuse to give a platform to racists, a faux-outraged moan has gone up: “So much for the tolerant left!” “So much for liberal tolerance!” The complaint became so hackneyed it turned into an already-hackneyed meme.
Amelia Fitzrovia
Kelly
Zhi Zhu 🕸️
John Panzer
ML2
Andy Waschick
Charlie Stross
Wolf_Baginski
Graydon
nilesh
Martin Vermeer (not Jesus)
DarkFox 🌻
Red Shirt Dude
Pirate Praveen 普拉文
Pinky Jones
aismallard (relocated!)
Crazy Pony
ilja 
none gender with left politics 
benda
Thomas Cameron
Tips for Overcomers
Humbird0 Fandom