Great stuff! I particularly like the part where you are opposing the misguided definition of tolerance. It aligns with my own thoughts on the subject. It indeed seems that for some, tolerance is just passivity repackaged as a virtue. However, I'm not convinced that your definition of it as "restraint from using force to silence or remove others from society" is completely valid either. You don't give strong arguments why the line should be drawn right there. And it's also problematic because force is used within society and what becomes an issue now is how exactly to tell when use of force is related to intolerance and when it's not. In a way, your definition merely shifted the problem somewhere else.
Maybe it would be better to avoid this pitfall altogether and stick to defining tolerance as something that characterizes the system and not something to be strived for (or fought against). That would mirror the medical and engineering definition of the word. Tolerance would be a limit of how much society can take without breaking. Then we could discuss if today's society (as a whole) is more or less tolerant than it was in the past. And what makes it so - and I would say it is this passivity, that some argue for, that makes society more fragile and less resilient.
Stated differently, I would argue the boundary of tolerance is nothing more than the equivalent of US law on free speech and laws against property damage.
I agree that it probably is not something to strive for. Mostly because the word tolerance is so strongly conflated with acceptance. However, I believe societal health requires more than just being aware of the boundaries or limits to tolerance or speech. If society just waits for the problems to be at its door, then it is already in the fragile state.
I consider society's culture is paramount to its health or resilience. The culture must continue to hold in high regard the value of rational reasoning and debate. I think many have thought that law will take care of society and protect the free state. As such, culture has been ignored and the damage has made its way through both society and law.
I'm stating that destruction of property would be considered outside tolerance.
BTW, just curious, did you read the article from within your email or from the website? I only ask because I made a few minor updates after the email went out somewhat related to your question. FYI, section "Where do we go from here?" was added at the end.
There are other laws, violations of which result in use of force to remove others from society (jail sentence). Is such use intolerant? Sometimes? Never?
Thanks, I've read the article from the website only, the most recent version.
Yes, if they are used for the purpose to silence speech, ideas, debate, political opposition etc.
Of course there will still exist laws that result in jail; however, assuming there are no violations of the above, that is as far as we can go, as at that point whatever laws exist should be those which have been agreed upon by the society through debate and free exchange of ideas.
Great stuff! I particularly like the part where you are opposing the misguided definition of tolerance. It aligns with my own thoughts on the subject. It indeed seems that for some, tolerance is just passivity repackaged as a virtue. However, I'm not convinced that your definition of it as "restraint from using force to silence or remove others from society" is completely valid either. You don't give strong arguments why the line should be drawn right there. And it's also problematic because force is used within society and what becomes an issue now is how exactly to tell when use of force is related to intolerance and when it's not. In a way, your definition merely shifted the problem somewhere else.
Maybe it would be better to avoid this pitfall altogether and stick to defining tolerance as something that characterizes the system and not something to be strived for (or fought against). That would mirror the medical and engineering definition of the word. Tolerance would be a limit of how much society can take without breaking. Then we could discuss if today's society (as a whole) is more or less tolerant than it was in the past. And what makes it so - and I would say it is this passivity, that some argue for, that makes society more fragile and less resilient.
Thank you!
Stated differently, I would argue the boundary of tolerance is nothing more than the equivalent of US law on free speech and laws against property damage.
I agree that it probably is not something to strive for. Mostly because the word tolerance is so strongly conflated with acceptance. However, I believe societal health requires more than just being aware of the boundaries or limits to tolerance or speech. If society just waits for the problems to be at its door, then it is already in the fragile state.
I consider society's culture is paramount to its health or resilience. The culture must continue to hold in high regard the value of rational reasoning and debate. I think many have thought that law will take care of society and protect the free state. As such, culture has been ignored and the damage has made its way through both society and law.
So, concept of property rights cannot be discussed? 🤐
I'm stating that destruction of property would be considered outside tolerance.
BTW, just curious, did you read the article from within your email or from the website? I only ask because I made a few minor updates after the email went out somewhat related to your question. FYI, section "Where do we go from here?" was added at the end.
There are other laws, violations of which result in use of force to remove others from society (jail sentence). Is such use intolerant? Sometimes? Never?
Thanks, I've read the article from the website only, the most recent version.
Yes, if they are used for the purpose to silence speech, ideas, debate, political opposition etc.
Of course there will still exist laws that result in jail; however, assuming there are no violations of the above, that is as far as we can go, as at that point whatever laws exist should be those which have been agreed upon by the society through debate and free exchange of ideas.