Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says progressive politicians need to tone down their rhetoric following the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. As Sean Amato reports, Smith’s comments are also under the microscope. #ableg #cdnpoli
Jokes aside you need to look up the concept of the paradox of tolerance. Only people lacking reason and centrists (but i repeat myself) would see “both sides” as being the same
The paradox of tolerance is almost universally misunderstood. It means that we need to have strong legal guarantees of human rights and punish those who violate those rights. It does not mean that we should try to violently or extra-legally suppress the right when it tries to gain power legally.
The immorality that it seeks to avoid is the elimination of tolerance. You can achieve that through strong laws without stooping to the level of fascists themselves. I’m not saying it’s a legal point, but that it has a legal solution.
You made a wild assertion defining the thing as something it’s absolutely not about while implying I misunderstood it in the same breath, and now I should be charitable in how I interpret you?
Point being: paradox of intolerance is absolutely agnostic to what’s legal and sometimes it can mean punching nazis
The paradox of tolerance says that if you tolerate everything, you will tolerate the intolerant when they take over, which will lead to intolerance.
The solution to the paradox of tolerance is simply to not tolerate the intolerant taking over and instituting an intolerant society. There are many examples of un-punched Nazis who have not managed to manifest their intolerance (because the law protects people), as well as punched Nazis who remain unrepentant and go on to commit intolerant crimes. Famously, the actual Nazi party was engaged in street battles with the Communists in inter-war Germany, and this didn’t prevent their rise to power. Their rise was enabled by a complicit populace voting for them, as well as a weak constitution which allowed dictatorial rule (and of course other factors).
You brought up the paradox of tolerance in response to someone denouncing violent rhetoric. But you have never explained - and can’t explain because it’s not true - how violent rhetoric is necessary to prevent the erosion of tolerance in society.
“Have you not looked at the headlines about how Pierre Poilievre is described as dangerous?” the premier said. “How the leader of the Opposition in Alberta has described me as dangerous? When you start using that kind of rhetoric, that ends up creating an elevated risk for all of us.”
She’s complaining about being called “dangerous”. That’s hardly violent rhetoric and certainly no worse than the language they use to describe their opponents.
Sure, there are some individuals on the internet spreading violence, but you cannot equate the non-conservative media rhetoric with the violent and dishonest rhetoric coming out of conservative sources.
Point out the elected democrat official who was openly calling for violence against republicans? What rhetoric are they even talking about? Us calling them an existential threat to our democracy? If it wasn’t true, we wouldn’t say it. Saying that isn’t calling for violence, and proposing that it does is engaging in the same whataboutism that republicans always do. It’s BS. Republicans shooting republicans and somehow it’s progressives fault 🙄
Two things can be true at once:
Yes, they should stop doing and saying things that are so horrendous.
Yes, we should not sink to their level with similarly violent rhetoric thus justifying their “see? The other side is just as violent as we are”.
Oh, look at that: Denouncing violent rhetoric on Lemmy gets met with a lynch mob of downvotes. I’m shocked!
Jokes aside you need to look up the concept of the paradox of tolerance. Only people lacking reason and centrists (but i repeat myself) would see “both sides” as being the same
The paradox of tolerance is almost universally misunderstood. It means that we need to have strong legal guarantees of human rights and punish those who violate those rights. It does not mean that we should try to violently or extra-legally suppress the right when it tries to gain power legally.
The paradox of tolerance is not about laws which are distinct from morality. It’s not a legal concept at all
The immorality that it seeks to avoid is the elimination of tolerance. You can achieve that through strong laws without stooping to the level of fascists themselves. I’m not saying it’s a legal point, but that it has a legal solution.
Well you certainly proved that it’s misunderstood
Why engage someone on a discussion board if you’re not actually willing to discuss the subject…
At least you understand now that I wasn’t saying the paradox of tolerance is “about laws.”
You made a wild assertion defining the thing as something it’s absolutely not about while implying I misunderstood it in the same breath, and now I should be charitable in how I interpret you?
Point being: paradox of intolerance is absolutely agnostic to what’s legal and sometimes it can mean punching nazis
The paradox of tolerance says that if you tolerate everything, you will tolerate the intolerant when they take over, which will lead to intolerance.
The solution to the paradox of tolerance is simply to not tolerate the intolerant taking over and instituting an intolerant society. There are many examples of un-punched Nazis who have not managed to manifest their intolerance (because the law protects people), as well as punched Nazis who remain unrepentant and go on to commit intolerant crimes. Famously, the actual Nazi party was engaged in street battles with the Communists in inter-war Germany, and this didn’t prevent their rise to power. Their rise was enabled by a complicit populace voting for them, as well as a weak constitution which allowed dictatorial rule (and of course other factors).
You brought up the paradox of tolerance in response to someone denouncing violent rhetoric. But you have never explained - and can’t explain because it’s not true - how violent rhetoric is necessary to prevent the erosion of tolerance in society.
Smith is quoted here as saying:
She’s complaining about being called “dangerous”. That’s hardly violent rhetoric and certainly no worse than the language they use to describe their opponents.
Sure, there are some individuals on the internet spreading violence, but you cannot equate the non-conservative media rhetoric with the violent and dishonest rhetoric coming out of conservative sources.
at least we didn’t stoop to their level right?
gets repeatedly clubbed for talking in the labor yard
Point out the elected democrat official who was openly calling for violence against republicans? What rhetoric are they even talking about? Us calling them an existential threat to our democracy? If it wasn’t true, we wouldn’t say it. Saying that isn’t calling for violence, and proposing that it does is engaging in the same whataboutism that republicans always do. It’s BS. Republicans shooting republicans and somehow it’s progressives fault 🙄
deleted by creator
I meant on Lemmy in general.