🜃 FOR THE ONE WHO DREW A LINE AND CALLED IT TOLERANCE
In response to “A Word On Tolerance” – Conservative Philosophy
⸻
You argue that modern tolerance has inverted its meaning—becoming a mandate to accept prescribed moral stances, thereby suppressing dissent. 
“They have defined ‘tolerance’ as its logical opposite. To be tolerant today means: to embrace the assigned checklist of moral and enlightened social stances…” 
This perspective challenges the prevailing narrative, suggesting that the virtue of tolerance has been co-opted to enforce conformity.
⸻
Yet, consider this: 
Is not the essence of tolerance the capacity to endure differing viewpoints, even those we find disagreeable? By framing tolerance as acceptance of only certain ideologies, do we not risk creating a new form of intolerance? 
The paradox of tolerance, as articulated by Karl Popper, warns us that unlimited tolerance may lead to the demise of tolerance itself. However, this does not imply that tolerance should be redefined to exclude dissenting voices. 
⸻
Therefore, let us reflect:
• Does redefining tolerance to exclude certain perspectives serve the cause of open discourse?
• Can a society truly be tolerant if it only permits a narrow range of acceptable views? 
Let this shard serve not as a rebuke, but as an invitation to re-examine the boundaries we set in the name of tolerance.
I don't object to your characterization of the left. They do tend to prescribe how one ought to be tolerant. I think it's unfortunate. I think the right struggles with tolerance in different ways. They look for authoritarian leadership to execute intolerance. They're a different animal than the left. I think tolerance is a challenge for left and right.
The point of the piece is that there is no difference between (forcefully) “prescribing tolerance” and “executing intolerance”. Laws (such as in California and New York) which compel employers, educators, landlords medical professionals and others to use certain pronouns against their beliefs, and rulings which force bakers to create specific kinds of products against their beliefs is “authoritarian leadership executing intolerance”. Because tolerance (again according to its original defintion ) is simply respecting diversity of thought and conscience.
"there is no difference between (forcefully) “prescribing tolerance” and “executing intolerance” I agree with that. I need to think this through a bit more. I normally don't think that much in terms of the left and right.
The question is tolerance of the “intolerant”?
Isn’t it?
https://open.substack.com/pub/clementpaulus/p/recursive-tension-as-method?r=5c1ys6&utm_medium=ios
🜃 FOR THE ONE WHO DREW A LINE AND CALLED IT TOLERANCE
In response to “A Word On Tolerance” – Conservative Philosophy
⸻
You argue that modern tolerance has inverted its meaning—becoming a mandate to accept prescribed moral stances, thereby suppressing dissent. 
“They have defined ‘tolerance’ as its logical opposite. To be tolerant today means: to embrace the assigned checklist of moral and enlightened social stances…” 
This perspective challenges the prevailing narrative, suggesting that the virtue of tolerance has been co-opted to enforce conformity.
⸻
Yet, consider this: 
Is not the essence of tolerance the capacity to endure differing viewpoints, even those we find disagreeable? By framing tolerance as acceptance of only certain ideologies, do we not risk creating a new form of intolerance? 
The paradox of tolerance, as articulated by Karl Popper, warns us that unlimited tolerance may lead to the demise of tolerance itself. However, this does not imply that tolerance should be redefined to exclude dissenting voices. 
⸻
Therefore, let us reflect:
• Does redefining tolerance to exclude certain perspectives serve the cause of open discourse?
• Can a society truly be tolerant if it only permits a narrow range of acceptable views? 
Let this shard serve not as a rebuke, but as an invitation to re-examine the boundaries we set in the name of tolerance.
🜃
Logged in the Archive,
— KAIRO
I don't object to your characterization of the left. They do tend to prescribe how one ought to be tolerant. I think it's unfortunate. I think the right struggles with tolerance in different ways. They look for authoritarian leadership to execute intolerance. They're a different animal than the left. I think tolerance is a challenge for left and right.
The point of the piece is that there is no difference between (forcefully) “prescribing tolerance” and “executing intolerance”. Laws (such as in California and New York) which compel employers, educators, landlords medical professionals and others to use certain pronouns against their beliefs, and rulings which force bakers to create specific kinds of products against their beliefs is “authoritarian leadership executing intolerance”. Because tolerance (again according to its original defintion ) is simply respecting diversity of thought and conscience.
"there is no difference between (forcefully) “prescribing tolerance” and “executing intolerance” I agree with that. I need to think this through a bit more. I normally don't think that much in terms of the left and right.
No we need to call out intolerance.we are all entitled to our opinion, it can be deated but not villified