ID: A scene from Legally Blonde of a conversation between Warner and Elle in the corridor at Harvard, in 4 panels:

  1. Warner asks “What happened to the tolerant left?”

  2. Elle replies, smiling “Who said we were tolerant?”

  3. Warner continues “I thought you were supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs!”

  4. Elle looks confused “Why would we tolerate bigotry, inequity, or oppression?”

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    0·
    14 hours ago

    The paradox of tolerance doesn’t lead to a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls’:

    Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

    Accordingly, constraining some liberties such as freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty. However, violence or violations of rights & regulations could justifiably be constrained.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      13 hours ago

      I was talking only about the individual tolerating or not the intolerant (in ways such as speaking or not against them).

      As soon as Force is also thrown into the equation (which what a Society would use to stop the intolerant) it’s a whole different thing because Force itself has its own much more complex moral framework.

      It’s easy to see the conundrum that one gets around using Force against intolerance by considering that it wouldn’t be acceptable to kill somebody (an extreme use of Force) for merely saying something deemed racist. If there’s an unacceptable use of Force against the intolerant, then is there one which is acceptable and if there is, were does the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable lie in the use of Force against intolerance and who gets to set it?

      Add Force into the equation and it’s just not the same thing as an individual’s moral guidance for nonviolent reactions against nonviolent intolerance.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        0·
        12 hours ago

        If there’s an unacceptable use of Force against the intolerant, then is there one which is acceptable and if there is

        I don’t see how that follows: spell out the logic?

        use of Force against intolerance

        I’m mostly confused, because I was thinking of violence/force used by the intolerant for intolerant acts: that can be justifiably constrained.

        Legal constraint implies force by legal authorities: violators go to jail or get legal penalties.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          11 hours ago

          Tolerance by itself already does not tolerate harming non-consenting adults, quite independently of the agressor being an intolerant or not.

          Further, violent intolerance is already covered by the rules against violence in general (there is a case to be made about the punishment for intolerant violence being greater than for similar violence which is not intolerant, but I’m not going into that here).

          I was only talking about personal acts in the framework of non-violence, for example speaking out or not against non-violent displays of intolerance, allowing the intolerant to use a space you control to spread their intolerance in a non-violent way and so on.

          So yeah, as soon as Force (be it via a social structure for the exercise of Force such as the Law or outside such structures) is considered against non-violent displays of intolerance, merelly Tolerance as a Social Contract does not suffice to cover it since the initiation of violence against other human beings who are not being violent comes with its own rules of morality.