It's that time again. With the re-election of the orange one and reddit going nuts banning anyone on the right, and even some on the left who don't believe in their BS, we're seeing this justified by the so called "paradox of tolerance." As we know, it comes down to the idea that "in order for tolerance to work, we can't tolerate the intolerant." This is normally used by people who espouse "woke" ideology to ban anyone that dares openly disagree with them, as they're not exactly open to nuance.
I've written an article on this before, but I kinda went on one of my tangents and made it way too long, so I want a more succinct article here.
My core argument against this idea comes down to what tolerance actually is. Tolerance means to "tolerate." It doesn't mean you have to like stuff, it just means you have to tolerate it. To allow it to exist. And to let them do their own thing until they harm others. WHEN, and ONLY when, beliefs start making their way into harmful behaviors, do we act to restrict such actions. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose.
As I see it, the left HAS to tolerate "nazis." It doesn't mean they have to like them, but they should TOLERATE them. However, when nazis start organizing to take away others' rights, THAT's the swinging the fist at someone else's nose. You shouldnt tolerate Nazis actually banning the behaviors of others or taking away their rights or killing them.
At the same time, nazis (and everyone else) has to tolerate you. You're free to hate nazis, and blast them online, whatever, but the line stops when you take away THEIR rights. And this is why I end up coming down on the woke harder than actual nazis sometimes.
It doesn't matter what side throws the first blow, any side that tries to actively subvert or take away the rights of others and force their ideology on them is automatically in the wrong, period. In our free speech rights, people have a right to be a nazi, but they dont have a right to act on nazi beliefs. Woke people have a right to be woke, but they can't force their beliefs on others.
The reason the paradox of tolerance is wrong is because it gives the woke a justification to preemptively go after anyone they deem to be a nazi. And in practice, it's anyone who disagrees with them. Including me, even though I'm attempting to be impartial here. But because I don't actively support their stuff, I'm sympathizing with the enemy in their eyes, even if I'm just trying to stop them from taking away others' rights before the proper lines have been crossed.
You can't do that, you can't just take away the rights of anyone you disagree with until they take action to take the rights of others away. That makes YOU the aggressor, and YOU the bad guy.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
To give another example I often use, let's take religion. If anything religion is good because it intersects with this whole idea as many christians are "christofascists" in "woke" peoples' views. In our country, we have two clauses in the constitution with religion. We have the establishment clause, which is intended to keep a wall of separation of church and state, and the free exercise clause, which gives people the right to practice their religion.
You cant stop people from being Christian. You can't stop christians from disliking homosexuality. However, when they wanna make homosexuality illegal under their religious views, they can kindly F off. You see the difference? Believe what you want, but you can't ACT on it in ways that go against the law or others' rights.
The problem with the "woke" is that they ARE literally intolerant. They don't tolerate opposing views. They are the kinds of people who would try to ban any sentiment that goes against their ideology, because they believe that it goes against "tolerance."
But...they're the ones not tolerating stuff. As long as a christian is like "well I think homosexuality is a sin but that doesn't mean that I can just make the behavior illegal", that's fine. Trying to make the behavior illegal in line with their religion? NOT fine. See the difference? Apply it to nazis. Apply it to any group you deem hateful. Tolerance involves tolerating that which you don't like. Including views of people who are authoritarian or hateful ###holes. And under those rules, you yourself are protected from the intolerance of others.
The problem with this "paradox of tolerance" is it leads to a lot of illiberalism and turning sentiments that in and of themselves aren't harmful, as long as aren't acted on, into a thought crime.
Having views is protected under our legal framework. Acting on them is not. You gotta tolerate people with bad views. You can draw the line at them acting on them.
If a fascist tries to take away someone's rights, go ham on them (in legal ways of course), I don't care. You just can't stop them from having bad views. You know? You gotta tolerate each other's crappy views. That's what tolerance is, and it applies to anyone with horrible views. But as long as their behavior isnt harming others, then they are protected from other weirdo authoritarians who wanna push their way of doing things on people. You know?
This is what liberal tolerance is all about. It's a liberal legal concept. It's intended to maximize our freedom and stop would be bad actors from infringing on our rights and our liberties. The actual paradox of tolerance, IMO, is the idea that those who claim to be the most tolerant aren't tolerant at all. They wanna punish anyone for speaking out of line and expressing wrong think. That is illiberal and authoritarian. They are the ones violating the concept of tolerance in doing that.
Again, youre free to whatever views you want, it's ACTING on those views that is bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment