"Be kind" is not a complete thought. Be kind to who? And don't say "Be kind to everyone!šŸ¤—" Because it's not possible to be kind to everyone.

Mr. Rogers is often held up as the example of someone that was kind to everyone. But even he roasted racists! He was unsympathetic to bigots who wanted to hold on to America's tradition of segregation. Something, something, paradox of tolerance.

"Be kind" is often the coward's way out of speaking up for those that need defending.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K6O_Ep9bY0U&t=1m30s

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018) - Officer Clemmons Scene (5/10) | Movieclips

YouTube

@mekkaokereke When heā€˜s sharing his towel to teach kids pool segregation is racist bullshit 😭

You are right, he would not be kind to racists!

@mekkaokereke tolerance and kindness can be thought of as a social contract. You break it - you lose the protection it provides.
@mekkaokereke Folks who have been abusive towards me really seem to enjoy telling me to be kind - when I stand up for myself & refuse to tolerate their abuse. I won't be kind to some folks because some folks simply don't deserve it from me.

@mekkaokereke

The "paradox of tolerance" vanishes with the realization that it is not a moral principle but a pragmatic social contract.

@dashdsrdash @mekkaokereke This is something I've struggled with a bit.

I totally agree that 'be kind to everyone' shouldn't stop of from defending the opressed, because at that point it becomes cowardice as you say and is an immoral act.

However I see a lot of behavior that isn't defending the opressed but instead de-humanizes the person we see as the agressor.

I think what I'm saying here is that this problem wants to be fixed with a verbal scalpel, not a mighty swing of a giant hammer.

@mekkaokereke I've always been of the belief that kindness implies zero tolerance for harm. If you are kind, you can't be harmful. Being *nice* to harmful people isn't kindness, it's enablement. @lisamelton

@brandonscript @mekkaokereke

Yeah, to me that's the difference between "nice" and "kind". Nice people can enable fascists, kind people don't.

@pearlbear @brandonscript @mekkaokereke

The etymology of ā€œniceā€ is illuminating:
late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science).

https://www.etymonline.com/word/nice

Nice - Etymology, Origin & Meaning

"foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy;… See origin and meaning of nice.

etymonline

@bill

Next thing you'll tell me is that "civil" was an adjective applied to social inferiors.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/civil#etymonline_v_13745

@pearlbear @brandonscript @mekkaokereke

civil | Etymology, origin and meaning of civil by etymonline

CIVIL Meaning: relating to civil law or life; pertaining to the internal affairs of a state, from Old French civil… See origin and meaning of civil.

@pearlbear @brandonscript @mekkaokereke

Many years ago I saw the play "Into the Woods." One of the most stunning, condemning lyrics was:

"You're nice. You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice."

Hit like a brick to the gut, because that's exactly it.

@mekkaokereke Someone pointed out once that that scene is significant to Christians in particular, because it directly references washing someone else's feet, implicitly putting them in a servant position, as Jesus did in the Biblical story.

So of course, someone being like Jesus towards black people made a bunch of Christians SUPER mad.

@rbos @mekkaokereke He was an ordained Presbyterian minister; he absolutely knew what he was doing.

@rbos @mekkaokereke I’m not religious myself, but I grew up around religion.

To me there’s always been a distinction between Christians and ā€œChristiansā€, in particular in America it would seem.

You don’t get to just slap the label onto yourself if you’re not going to participate in the culture that label actually signifies.

Not being jealous of each other, not killing each other, being kind to each other, those are all base tenants of the religion.

@rbos @mekkaokereke Mr Rogers was a Presbyterian minister, so we can safely assume the symbolism was fully intentional.
@mekkaokereke @Daveography There’s a kindness to standing up for those who need defending, and to punishing certain people.

@mekkaokereke

At the checkout line at the grocery store my 4yo once asked me, "Do you know that person, is he your friend?" "No", I said.

Kid then asked, why are you being nice to him? (Teenager, working, helping me)

I just said that I will always start off that way unless I have a really good reason not to.

Edit to also say that the 4yo used to call it "Mr. Rogershood" which is definitely a place I would live!

@mekkaokereke I see "Be kind" as a call to bring positive effect to those around you. In the buddhist concept of Metta, and this Pali word often translated as Loving-Kindness and is associated with Compassion.(Also a widely misunderstood and misused word). I have only one bumper sticker on my car, which reads ā€œShow up & Be Kindā€. It's an homage to a local surfer who tragically died young here in our coastside community, but also a reminder of this principle of Compassion.

@mekkaokereke
Contrary to bigotry, metta calls us to have an active, benevolent interest in others. It calls us to protect the victims of bigotry and to show the bigot their error. It does not require us to put up with their shit.

;-)

@mekkaokereke
This reminds me of The Doctor's "always try to be nice and never fail to be kind"
Which at least I interpret as meaning that being kind to a Nazi means to punch them, since just accepting all their bullshit would be the "being nice" part.
And when people try to weaponize the word "kind" that way, this is how I chose to interpret it. Same goes for "professional" and similar words that like to be weaponized against minorities (The professional thing is to have professional ethics, and to not consider the appearance of the speaker as indicative of the truth of their words).
@mekkaokereke then again, this means that the kind thing to do to Mengele would have been to sentence him to death and leave his body for the birds to feed on.

@mekkaokereke

In this latest kerfuffle over the Billionaire Tin Can Death, I've noticed who tends to cape for Kindness and I've found, once again, that *certain* folks (AHEM) think manners are an appropriate substitute (or maybe proxy is the better word) for having a strong political ethos.

@DeliaChristina @mekkaokereke Woooooooooooooooo (c) Rik Flair

@Are0h @mekkaokereke
There are some excellent posts about this on Tik Tok and the demographic of the Cape for Kindness Brigade is, well, you know. 🤐

And it just makes me think that, damn, some folks *again* need to really really think about what it means to have a good politics and whether they have one--and what's the grounding for it.

Cuz the My Little Pony version of the Sermon on the Mount ain't gonna get us to liberation.

Pshhhh.

@DeliaChristina @mekkaokereke Yeah talked about it a couple days ago and I've seen the convo on Tiktok.

With all that has happened in the last few years,
this is the moment certain FOLKS are gonna try and take the moral high ground on?

LOL, really??

@Are0h
Right?
No class consciousness or worker solidarity.
No economic justice lens.
Certainly no lens through which to break down white supremacy or patriarchy.

Just...'Being mean isn't a good look.'

I can't.

@DeliaChristina @Are0h @mekkaokereke ā€œthe My Little Pony version of the Sermon on the Mountā€ I will pass the plate on this Word as soon as I stop doubling over laughing
@sophieschmieg @mekkaokereke i think of showing love for others in this way too. Doing for others the thing that they need, not necessarily the thing that they (or you) want.
You could do a lot worse than asking "What would Mr. Rogers Do?" in any circumstances.
@mekkaokereke I’ve seen ā€œBe Kindā€ and variations get appropriated by people of various ideologies who could best be characterized as ā€œangryā€
@mekkaokereke
Yes. We white people confuse •kindness• with •tolerance• all the time. The characters in the clip, the sentiment behind it — that’s all kindness. Even inviting racists out of their own hate is a form of kindness. Fred Rogers is kind to the core. And has no tolerance whatsoever for anti-Blackness. Not ā€œbut.ā€ ā€œAnd.ā€
@mekkaokereke @heathborders This is what @tab means when she says "being kind is not the same as being nice". Tough love is kind. So, I'd argue, is punching Nazis.
@numist @mekkaokereke @tab as a pacifist, I'd s/punching Nazis/standing up to Nazis/, but yes.

@mekkaokereke @mmalc

Moral clarity implies calling people out who actively clash with your values. We must not be paralyzed by ā€œthe paradox of tolerance.ā€

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

@mekkaokereke And that look Rogers gives the camera at the end to drive the point home. ā€œCool water on a hot day. (Grow tf up, you pissants.)ā€
@mekkaokereke (though he would’ve put it more politely)

@mekkaokereke

"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 terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it."

See thread about the Paradox of Tolerance: https://newsie.social/@ZhiZhu/109667628453454747

ZhiZhu (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image The philosopher Karl Popper published what came to be known as the Paradox of Tolerance in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies" in 1945. It dealt with the question of how a society that promotes tolerance is to deal with those who are intolerant. #Paradox #philosophy

Newsie
@ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke ā€œThe only thing we cannot tolerate is intoleranceā€ (Karl Popper)

@ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke
I like this because it fits how you make safe spaces for charged conversations. The group makes a shared covenant of what is acceptable. Once the covenant is made, not abiding by it excludes you from the group.

#playingFair #covenant #tolerance

@ZhiZhu this is the argument that persuaded me. i'm an actual proponent of Free Speechā„¢ļø but at some point you have to recognize that someone's actions can threaten that right for everyone else.
@ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke
This is pithy, but leaves all the practical details unsolved. Those intolerant people exist, and are pretty heavily mixed in with the tolerant. What do you DO with them? I don't think that either "kill them" or "throw them bodily out of the state" are good answers.
@AlexxKay @ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke I think you simply no-platform intolerance. At least then it will be harder to gather support for such unpleasant philosophies. This is the clearly-needed limit to free speech that the US has not yet come to terms with.
@AlexxKay @ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke I think you should never do to them what they would do to others, as a first negative approximation.
Sure is a pity those are literally the only two options
@AlexxKay
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing
I didn't mean to imply they were, just that they weren't acceptable options. But options beyond those are Complicated.
@ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke It’s a paradox in that for tolerance to survive the tolerate must, at times, be intolerant. It’s about the tolerant, not those receiving tolerance. Someone need not play a part in some formal social contract, even be aware of it, etc., to receive tolerance.
@lightandshadow @ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke hardly anyone is actively aware of the social contracts they're involved in and their details. People just fulfill the contract by letting you do your thing without interference and implicitly regard you as fulfilling it as long as you let them do theirs. It's only when people begin to theorise about that that it's suddenly called a contract.
@hllizi @ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke The people you seem to be referring to are ā€œthe tolerantā€œ in Popper’s paradox. The paradox reflects a response to people who are not open to rational argument and correcting errors without violence. They are not open to criticism. Does being open to criticism fit the description of a social contract? Possibly. But I do not think that’s what you meant by people ā€œletting you do your thing without interference, and vice versaā€.
@ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke I've never liked the "paradox" framing. I think it's better to think about if the goal is not to eliminate intolerance (impossible) but instead to minimize intolerance.

@nnethercote @ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke look into the impossibility proofs in fair machine learning. There's no paradox but the proof is correct and people don't like what it says.

Fairness (defined reasonably) is mathematically impossible.

It's just a fact and we need to start dealing with the consequences not pretending it isn't true.

@ZhiZhu @mekkaokereke "not as a moral standard but as a social contract" aren't those the same?
@mekkaokereke Mr. Rogers was very clear on where he stood. Respect.
@Are0h @mekkaokereke
Mr. Rogers showed us what reverence for all life is. Reverence beyond the religious type.
@mekkaokereke kind is also to pull people up in whatever way is necessary. Enabling bad behaviour is not kindness.
@mekkaokereke eg. Punching nazis? Kindness.
@mekkaokereke @lisamelton I feel there’s an analogy to people who suffered abuse from parents and need fixing through kindness — which is only slightly possible with enormous effort and sometimes not at all — but you can’t condone any abusive actions they themselves