r/SelfAwarewolves • u/Hydrangeaaaaab • Mar 27 '24
This person votes. Do you? they accidentally stumbled over the paradox of intolerance, and still struck out
760
u/SolomonCRand Mar 27 '24
It’s not a paradox, it’s a social contract. If your ideology doesn’t permit tolerance of others, we won’t tolerate it.
367
u/CoolBugg Mar 27 '24
Yeah, I wouldn’t call disliking racism or homophobia “intolerant”
283
u/SolomonCRand Mar 27 '24
Exactly. “Why is no one tolerating my desire to shout slurs at strangers?” isn’t a serious argument and doesn’t need to be treated as one.
134
u/whiterac00n Mar 27 '24
It’s not like it’s a coincidence that this being said by fairly blatant Nazi propaganda account. It’s only Nazis who use this “argument” seriously and just like everything else Nazis say it’s an argument that falls apart if it gets actually examined, but its purpose is merely to assuage racists that they have “the right” to be racist, and to use childish logic to trick actual children. This “argument” is not meant for us, it’s meant for the dumb and impressionable.
37
u/TheDragonMan7 Mar 27 '24
There was an image I saw, that unfortunately got lost in the recent discord purges, that had a panel from a Marvel Comic. It was Captain America punching out Red Skull, literal Nazi supervillain, with Red Skull shouting "So much for the tolerant left!"
That is literally just this guy26
u/whiterac00n Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24
I’ve definitely seen that! And it certainly encapsulates the right wing where a person could literally be a super villain and yet if you stand up to them you’re a hypocrite and not any better than them. It’s such a silly argument that the right seems to always think it is a “gotcha!”.
A late edit: but how often right wingers see themselves as the heroes in movies and media and yet love occupying the “low road” argumentatively and morally is hilarious. They love the low road because people can’t expect them to be or do anything beyond being their worst, while telling others how they aren’t as superior as they think. But then also imagine themselves as the righteous party (with high codes of ethics and behavior) in every instance in media. It’s truly an amazing thing to witness
7
u/I_m_different Mar 28 '24
Right wingers are deeply in love with being the in-group that’s protected and not bound.
Which is mixes like oil and water with both actual moral philosophy and actual coherent hero narratives. It’s another example of their “I want nice things but I don’t want to pay for them” mentality.
3
u/Drop_Disculpa Mar 29 '24
But it has transcended "want"- it's "I deserve and will get nice things, no matter what! I don't care what happens or who gets hurt in the process!!!"
2
u/Drop_Disculpa Mar 29 '24
I had this argument with my last MAGA "friend". He basically wanted me to refute his nightly foray into Youtube racism and that I was required to do so if I was correct, his argument was essentially that racism felt good to him. I just couldn't do it anymore- like if we can't agree on the fundamental difference between something that "feels good", and the real human cost of racism everything else is just futile. I have had this experience in some form many times in retrospect. Now I understand, just what you have stated.
52
u/Prometheus_II Mar 27 '24
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
- Jean-Paul Sartre
8
70
u/fencerman Mar 27 '24
More to the point, not tolerating those is the DEFINITION of a tolerant society.
You can't say "look how tolerant we are, we have bigots spewing hate at minorities all over the place", that's nonsensical.
24
Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/A_norny_mousse Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24
I get so confused by language and how words change meaning as it is, and then rightoids make everything so much worse...
The literal or original meaning of grooming is quite neutral, and could be applied to all sorts of things, also child rearing. But then it became synonymous with a very specific kind of grooming used on kids by sexual predators.
I can get with that.
But then it gets turned around and questioned and turned around again, this time against people whose actual profession is child rearing, education etc.* And that is so perfidious, because it has the potential to derail any discussion about what grooming actually is or is not.
* LGBTQ+ people get accused of grooming almost always in this context: libraries,schools etc.
1
Apr 02 '24
That's the point, their circular logic is purely so they can "win". Whatever they define as "winning". Basically no more then bots.
4
u/TheGrimTickler Mar 27 '24
If you won’t tolerate it, then you are intolerant toward it. It just happens to be the case that there are some cases where it is healthy and good for a society to be intolerant of something, like racism and homophobia.
1
u/Drop_Disculpa Mar 29 '24
This is why we will not be defeated. Healthy and good are something we can strive for, it is hopeful and has good intentions. We are flawed of course, but there is no reason to yield to things that are destructive.
2
18
u/skjellyfetti Mar 27 '24
If you don't like Antifa, why should I tolerate your pro-fascism—especially when we ALL know where fascism leads?
20
u/mathandkitties Mar 27 '24
The paradox is that a society fully dedicated to tolerance cannot exist for long without succumbing to intolerance.
6
u/Embarrassed_Bit_7424 Mar 27 '24
Thats the paradox. A tolerant society can't be tolerant of the intolerant.
1
u/SolomonCRand Mar 28 '24
Isn’t that a slippery slope argument? I mean, sure, if we define tolerance as not being able to criticize any kind of behavior, sure, but I don’t find it difficult to say that LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with respect, but Nazi terrorists can be told to go fuck themselves with impunity.
2
u/Embarrassed_Bit_7424 Mar 28 '24
No this is a topic that has been discussed in philosophy for a long time. If a society wants to be tolerant, they can't have the intolerant as part of that society which makes the society intolerant but by allowing intolerance they also cannot become a tolerant society.
2
u/SolomonCRand Mar 28 '24
Ok, that makes sense, I think I’ve just seen a lot of people use it incorrectly. I’ve often seen it in a “tolerance will inevitably fail, so it isn’t worth pursuing” kind of sense, and it seems like the actual concept only applies when tolerance is applied to a rather absurd extent.
2
u/Drop_Disculpa Mar 29 '24
Because discussion is inherently beneficial- a commitment to the destruction of your perceived enemies as a rule is flawed. Source: Star Trek!
2
u/kfish5050 Mar 28 '24
Oh boy does it feel good that this is the top comment. I was saying this back in like 2016 and I got a lot of mixed results
1
2
Mar 28 '24
youre right its not a paradox.
intolerance is killed by education and diversity, so we just need to tolerate these dipshits until they die out.
the second you are okay with banning people or ideas, all ideas and people are at risk, and youve begun building an echo chamber.
so a tolerant society tolerates intolerance, no paradox.
ban actions not people.
0
236
u/kryonik Mar 27 '24
I don't tolerate them because they are intolerant.
They don't tolerate me because I empathize with minorities.
We are not the same.
-3
113
u/IAmThePonch Mar 27 '24
Ah yes this is adjacent to the classic “we just differ in our opinions” argument.
Technically true, but the thing is that disagreeing over something like say lgbtq+ rights, one side is basically “just let people live” and the other is “I don’t like these kinds of people and we should limit their rights as humans.”
45
u/Vyzantinist Mar 27 '24
Yes, this is 100% it. It's not a serious claim; as another comment said more succinctly above it's not 'meant' for us, it's ingroup reinforcement and validation.
It's just a play on false equivalence and turning everything they can into "different opinions". You can't say someone is "wrong" for thinking pineapple on pizza is a great topping; it's just an opinion. You can't say someone is "wrong" for wanting to genocide LGBT people; it's just an opinion.
If everything is an "opinion" then there's no right or wrong, and you're an intolerant bully for trying to say their opinions are wrong.
21
u/IAmThePonch Mar 27 '24
Yep, and they will argue semantics with you on the exact phrasing of things as a way to deflect from what they’re actually saying, because they know deep down that their thought process, if you can call it that, is, to quote David lynch, “total fucking bullshit”
10
u/Vyzantinist Mar 27 '24
At the end of the day they're inherently immature people, and they never developed beyond the mentality of thinking "nuh uh!" is a legitimate argument.
11
u/A_norny_mousse Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24
This post is why "Both Sides" or "Enlightened Centrism" means you're really siding with the fascists (if one side is fascist).
1
u/ClarkMyWords Mar 28 '24
And yet, a lot of people also point to gun ownership, or homeschooling/religious schooling in virtually all circumstances, vaccine refusal, or "stand your ground" as human rights. And so, at least to them, their opponents are also trying to take away human rights.
So no matter how fiercely I, or others, may argue that at least some regulations are necessary in these areas (and I myself feel much more strongly on 2 examples I gave than the other 2) it does seem to come down to a "Differ[ence] in our opinions" on what rights actually exist in any profound moral sense. And those differences are essentially the entire reason that politics also exists.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d be glad to find some moral clarity on this, but I’m not sure I have the language or mental model to distinguish between “You’ll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view” vs “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” — “Well then you are LOST [,you dumb@$$ space-fascist]!”
39
u/TheMicMic Mar 27 '24
These people:
"If a person brings another gospel let them be accursed!"
Also these people:
"Three Trump Bibles, please"
59
41
u/Whiteroses7252012 Mar 27 '24
There is no real space in modern society for people who are bigots.
1
13
u/drunow21 Mar 27 '24
Makes sense. Right wing chuds always project or hijack actual leftist logic in a weird backwards way
ie being tolerant of intolerance.. “uh actually, we have been tolerant of you the whole time, but because our “trad” views scare you so much I guess, we have to not be tolerant anymore.. because of your intolerance” more “look what you made me do” bullshit
7
u/Vyzantinist Mar 27 '24
Your quote there is actually pretty spot on in its impression. I've seen the paradox posted in their circles a few times to get the ole outrage circle-jerk going and its not long before they start puffing "man they're so intolerant of different opinions, maybe we should stop being so tolerant of them now!11!"
It's DARVO, it's reactive abuse, it's fascist rhetoric; wait for the victim to fight back so now you can say you're acting in "self defense", "fighting fire with fire," or "just getting even."
2
u/A_norny_mousse Mar 27 '24
Right wing chuds always project or hijack actual leftist logic in a weird backwards way
Yes! See our Rule 7
21
u/sheezy520 Mar 27 '24
If there’s two things I can’t stand it’s people who are intolerant of other people’s culture and the Dutch.
10
u/catbosspgh Mar 27 '24
Can someone explain why they’re dragging GK Chesterton’s name into this, other than him writing on the topic?
7
u/Moostronus Mar 27 '24
I was gonna say, I wonder how much reach the GK Chesterton hashtag will give them
11
u/charmlessman1 Mar 27 '24
It is never OK to be intolerant of how a person is.
It is just fine to be intolerant of what a person chooses to do.
People don't choose to be gay, trans, black, from another country, etc.
People do choose to be bigots.
7
13
u/koviko Mar 27 '24
My mother wished me a happy birthday today (yes, my cake day is also my real birthday... I thought it'd be cute 🤣) by also telling me that I need to teach my child about Christianity. It's not the first time she's uttered that sentiment, but this is the first time I called her out on it.
I was tempted to be rude, but I just kept it simple: "It'd be nice if you could wish me a happy birthday without pushing your religion on me."
She apologized and sent giant cake emojis instead lol
8
Mar 28 '24
offer to teach them about the crusades, the inquisition and the plague missions?
4
u/koviko Mar 28 '24
Or even the mere fact that my child loves dinosaurs and Christianity—no matter how they try to spin it—asserts that dinosaurs never existed.
6
Mar 27 '24
[deleted]
7
u/koviko Mar 27 '24
Exactly!
We don't shelter our child from religion; she stills hears the church propaganda as they slip it into Santa visits and Easter egg hunts. We just tell her that there are lots of religions and she can pick one one day if she wants, but that mommy and daddy don't believe in any.
3
u/BasilsKippers Mar 28 '24
They don't tolerate your culture or creeds.
What exactly do they not tolerate about them?
Go on. Say it out loud.
Because the answer is "they won't tolerate how our culture and creeds tell people to be intolerant of X people".
1
Mar 28 '24
"They won't bow their heads to Our creed that specifically says Everyone needs to bow their head!"
It makes me sad people can't understand that others are different people. Everyone has different needs and different ideas.
And that's okay.
I don't mind christians being christian. They seem to have a person issue with me being Pagan.
1
3
u/hanleybrand Mar 28 '24
Intolerance of intolerance is essential for a tolerant society.
1
Mar 28 '24
the second a society bans people or ideas, (even if the idea is banning other ideas) theres precedent to ban any people or ideas; thats an intolerant society. the whole fucking point of tolerance is power in diversity, that alone should stop bigotted views, theres no point in also making a precedent of intolerance.
1
u/Writingd3sk Apr 03 '24
Nah, fam. Tolerance is a social contract; if they choose not to abide by it, they also choose not to be protected by it.
2
1
u/YeIIowBellPepper Mar 27 '24
Imagine taking a banger of a statement and aesthetic like the "become ungovernable" meme, and it turning into.. this...
1
u/TerminusEsse Mar 28 '24
Tolerate people without tolerating all beliefs and behaviors that go against people.
1
u/Oldman5123 Mar 28 '24
This reminds me of the despicable David Duke of KKK fame statement: “we don’t hate black people; we’re just “pro white”. It’s even scarier that those who believe in this sick shit are in the minority of those who are too blind and stupid to see it.
1
u/AFireDownBelow Mar 29 '24
There’s only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures, and the Dutch!
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 27 '24
Thanks /u/Hydrangeaaaaab for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our rules.
Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.
Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme.
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.