Its basic strategy. LGBT groups wanted tolerance in the 1970s, but now sue you out of business if you don't make a "transition-party cake". Same could be said for Muslims in Europe: they want tolerance now because their numbers are small, but when they get the majority, they might want to change a few things.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-03-22/col...
No, we've been fighting for equality, not simple tolerance. And btw, the cake maker won that case in court. If my business openly discriminated against Christians, you bet your ass I'd get sued into oblivion.
If you were a devout Muslim baker and a Christian came in and ordered a hand-crafted cake with the message "Jesus is Lord and the one true king", you think you would be legally compelled to create it for them?
Please don't post generic ideological rhetoric to HN. It leads to generic ideological flamewars, which are boring because they're predictable and nasty.
> Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats.
> But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Saying of tolerance as a peace treaties, one need to note of peace treaties being subject to abuse.
If you have peace talks in between every artillery barrage, the one to win will be the fastest one to shoot, and then to call the press, UN, and international peace mediators
> If one side has breached another’s rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant
This norm creates a market for casus belli.
I am reminded of how the Serbs kept talking about how the Croats massacred their ancestors and collaborated with Nazi Germany. Well, yes, that happened. And yet.
Or suppose you are an Indian Muslim, and you have been worshipping at the Babri Masjid (a mosque) just as your parents did. But then a Hindu mob is reminded in 1992 that, when it was constructed in the 16th century, it was built on top of a temple to Rama (indeed it is His birthplace!) -- what an outrage! So they tear it down with their bare hands. Have they delivered justice to your community?
(What actually happens: Violence breaks out between Hindus and Muslims, and pretty soon 2,000 people have been killed.)
There are people who benefit when society switches to "war mode", and they are not good people.
This is a victory-lap by the class of people who have been so successful specifically because they have hidden behind the virtue of tolerance long enough to enforce their agendas without democratic approval (abortion, mass immigration, pornography, etc.) and to relentlessly propagandize and retroactively manufacture consent for said agendas.
The irony is that these people continue pretending to be working class, when the working class is the last bastion of organic culture which they want to crush.
> [Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
I agree. As I've stated before, the logical conclusion of tolerance-as-virtue is that nothing but tolerance is permitted; all other institutions must be hollowed out into vehicles of tolerance, and then the vehicle will be discarded. One can see the final stages of this with Christianity, and one can readily see its progress within Islam as well.
> The model of a peace treaty highlights another challenge which tolerance always faces: peace is not always possible, because sometimes people’s interests are fundamentally incompatible.
This is exactly the situation tolerance is for. Two factions with strong, incompatible views that need to work together for common benefit.
not sure why this article feels that a moral precept must be absolute.
even viewed in a lens of tolerance being absolute, a moral person must make tradeoffs. we have to choose whether to tolerate intolerance towards others or ourselves, or whether we must act against the immoral behavior. the article hinges around the assumption that if tolerance is a precept it must not have limits to that tolerance, but there is no such apparent truth to me. morality is rarely so straightforward.
I haven't much opinion about the alternative "peace treaty" stance, but it sets the stage, imagines the world, as less moral, more dangerous, more contested. to me, tolerance is in part an act of humility, of not taking oneself as superior, and part a belief in diversity, that we are better as a planet (or planet+) for having lots of wats, means, & views, that a rich pool is better than a concentrated one. the peace treaty stance suggests more combativeness among the realms than I think tolerance ought need rest upon.
Tolerance is no peace treaty, that's a bad analogy. There is no mutual accord between people before they tolerate each other. This is re-defining words in an attempt to do "continental philosophy", a bunch of hot air to justify claims, which happen to be the exact opposite of what the article is claiming... let's redefine tolerance so that "we" (the chosen members of this ideology) can practice intolerance against those we dislike without the risk of being seen as an intolerant asshole.
Toleration is the first step towards labeling others as "intolerables", such that you can then take actions on them without judgement.
This tries to claim tolerance as quid pro quo. It could be. And my favorite ice cream could be strawberry. But even if all those things were true, they'd be unrelated coincidence.
20 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 50.6 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats.
> But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Saying of tolerance as a peace treaties, one need to note of peace treaties being subject to abuse.
If you have peace talks in between every artillery barrage, the one to win will be the fastest one to shoot, and then to call the press, UN, and international peace mediators
This norm creates a market for casus belli.
I am reminded of how the Serbs kept talking about how the Croats massacred their ancestors and collaborated with Nazi Germany. Well, yes, that happened. And yet.
Or suppose you are an Indian Muslim, and you have been worshipping at the Babri Masjid (a mosque) just as your parents did. But then a Hindu mob is reminded in 1992 that, when it was constructed in the 16th century, it was built on top of a temple to Rama (indeed it is His birthplace!) -- what an outrage! So they tear it down with their bare hands. Have they delivered justice to your community?
(What actually happens: Violence breaks out between Hindus and Muslims, and pretty soon 2,000 people have been killed.)
There are people who benefit when society switches to "war mode", and they are not good people.
The irony is that these people continue pretending to be working class, when the working class is the last bastion of organic culture which they want to crush.
> [Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
I agree. As I've stated before, the logical conclusion of tolerance-as-virtue is that nothing but tolerance is permitted; all other institutions must be hollowed out into vehicles of tolerance, and then the vehicle will be discarded. One can see the final stages of this with Christianity, and one can readily see its progress within Islam as well.
> The model of a peace treaty highlights another challenge which tolerance always faces: peace is not always possible, because sometimes people’s interests are fundamentally incompatible.
This is exactly the situation tolerance is for. Two factions with strong, incompatible views that need to work together for common benefit.
even viewed in a lens of tolerance being absolute, a moral person must make tradeoffs. we have to choose whether to tolerate intolerance towards others or ourselves, or whether we must act against the immoral behavior. the article hinges around the assumption that if tolerance is a precept it must not have limits to that tolerance, but there is no such apparent truth to me. morality is rarely so straightforward.
I haven't much opinion about the alternative "peace treaty" stance, but it sets the stage, imagines the world, as less moral, more dangerous, more contested. to me, tolerance is in part an act of humility, of not taking oneself as superior, and part a belief in diversity, that we are better as a planet (or planet+) for having lots of wats, means, & views, that a rich pool is better than a concentrated one. the peace treaty stance suggests more combativeness among the realms than I think tolerance ought need rest upon.
Toleration is the first step towards labeling others as "intolerables", such that you can then take actions on them without judgement.
Understanding, is better than tolerance.