Remix.run Logo
yndoendo 15 hours ago

When I think of the _Paradox of Tolerance_ I always think of Gödel's _incompleteness theorems_.

Say you are restaurant owner that is tolerant of any consumer, it brings in money. Left, right, center, no matter the political spectrum; gay, straight, bisexual, no matter the sexuality. You provide them a good meal and they gladly pay. Now comes in a client and he starts trashing the place, tipping over tables, spitting in people's food. Do you stay tolerant and let it happen or brake your tolerance and deal with the situation and get him out? Your clients will no longer be tolerant of you and your business if you keep letting having is way.

Reality, you have defined "tolerance of others" with axioms that they do not maliciously destroy the property in our restaurant and they don't spit in the food of your clients. _Paradox of Tolerance_ highly resembles an inconsistent formal system pertaining to the proof of tolerance. "Tolerance of others" is a constant formal system in order to be tolerant.

Both you and your clients have agree upon definition of tolerance. It is the man destroying your property, you, and your clients that have differences in the definition of behavioral tolerance. The three do not share the same axioms. A universal definition of tolerance cannot be obtained.

Tolerance is also contextual, based on set and setting; who else is around, making it a malleable definition. This means _tolerance_ is a set / highly parameterized function. Location of public or private is just one parameter of many. For instant the scenario above about the business would most likely be accept if the setting was on set for a scene in a move.

anonym29 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The issue I think arrives when there is an unwillingness to tolerate people who hold intolerant ideas, views, or beliefs, even when those people do not act on those ideas, views, or beliefs - i.e. when the people with intolerant views are not actually practicing intolerance.

It's one thing to shun a customer for practicing intolerance, it's another to shun a customer for holding intolerant beliefs without actually practicing intolerance or materially affecting the quality of life of anyone around them, is it not?

lazyasciiart an hour ago | parent [-]

Someone who takes no actions based on their beliefs effectively doesn’t hold those beliefs, as far as anyone else knows, and doesn’t get shunned for them. So you’re trying to define some level of advertising your beliefs as “not acting on them”. What’s that level? An op-ed on the problem of gay people, or just a casual remark that of course gay marriage is a sin?

lazyeye 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What if the restaurant gets a customer who is perfectly polite, tips well but is wearing a red maga hat?

cess11 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It shouldn't get that far. Once you invite one fascist, and the first one is typically polite, there will be more coming so you've got to "nip it in the bud".

https://www.reddit.com/r/punk/comments/1ama4ld/the_nazi_bar_...

shadowgovt 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

lazyeye 6 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

tomhow 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Please don't comment like this on HN, no matter what you're replying to. Just flag it and move on.