11–20 of 100 posts
[flagged]
Is this any different than Popper’s paradox of tolerance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
I have a hard time imagining that that's what Popper meant.
[flagged]
"We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." This is exactly what you shouldn't do. As long as you can talk to people you should. These people are talking, they aren't out there being violent or murdering people, they are just sitting there talking, if you attack verbally them like this then their kids will hate you as well. Like "my parents aren't racist, they just want us to get the best bo…
More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this any different than Popper’s paradox of tolerance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
Popper at least has the decency to call it a paradox. This quote fully assumes that anyone that does not agree with the author on everything is intolerant and deserves to be excluded. I have a hard time imagining that that's what Popper meant.
It is in no way a real paradox.
[flagged]
Any teaching that assumes that the student is a biggot that needs to be corrected, and that the student should just accept his truth on the basis of his/her authority as a teacher, is obviously a fairly bad way of teaching. The teacher should make the knowledge he wants to impart approachable and use an angle that the student can accept so as to convince him/her.
[flagged]
Is this any different than Popper’s paradox of tolerance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any teaching that assumes that the student is a biggot that needs to be corrected, and that the student should just accept his truth on the basis of his/her authority as a teacher, is obviously a fairly bad way of teaching. The teacher should make the knowledge he wants to impart approachable and use an angle that the student can accept so as to convince him/her.
the quote does not make any assumption about bigotry of the student, but rather of the parents.
“Look, we literally can’t force your child to do anything. If they prefer to sit non-disruptively and receive a zero in that part of the curriculum, that works for us.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." This is exactly what you shouldn't do. As long as you can talk to people you should. These people are talking, they aren't out there being violent or murdering people, they are just sitting there talking, if you attack verbally them like this then their kids will hate you as well. Like "my parents aren't racist, they just want us to get the best bo…
> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the quote does not make any assumption about bigotry of the student, but rather of the parents.
Indeed. If the parents are concerned about the book being part of the curriculum because the author is black, Jewish, homosexual, or any ‘other’ (rather than on the contents of the book), it seems to be a fairly accurate assumption. “Look, we literally can’t force your child to do anything. If they prefer to sit non-disruptively and receive a zero in that part of the curriculum, that works for us.”
Teacher: Your kid needs to read a book by a black author.
Parent: Why do my kid need to read a book by a black author? I don't think that is a good way to pick books.
Teacher: So you say you refuse to let your kid read any books by black people? Stop being such a bigoted racist! Society isn't tolerant enough to tolerate people like you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".
The people refusing dialog are the one who are most intolerant. That is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." This is exactly what you shouldn't do. As long as you can talk to people you should. These people are talking, they aren't out there being violent or murdering people, they are just sitting there talking, if you attack verbally them like this then their kids will hate you as well. Like "my parents aren't racist, they just want us to get the best bo…
> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".
Intolerance of intolerance isn't just political theatre. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the kinds of practical horrors that racism etc create in an otherwise liberal culture.
Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder.
There isn't really a paradox here. These are all very, very hard to justify on basic humanitarian grounds.
And if someone wants to say "But communism" - it's not hard to agree that's often been a different brand of authoritarianism which takes root in countries with no liberal tradition.
But the question remains - can "not communism" prove it's better? If it's justifying and accepting racism etc, I don't see that it can - because if you're on the wrong end of endemic social violence you get a very different view of your culture to the people who live in the comfortable and privileged part of it.
And this is not an abstract debate, but something that is going to affect your lived experience, possibly on a daily basis.