November Open Thread
I guess we should talk about politics, but can we keep it civil, just to show the world it’s possible? My question is this: How much tolerance is too much tolerance? Where do we draw the line? How can we tell if we’re just imposing our biases versus protecting a relatively free society? As I write this, the US political system has allowed a twice impeached, convicted felon who tried to overturn the last election and is calling for the persecution of his enemies to run for office again. Does tolerance demand that we tolerate intolerant threats to tolerance? (edit: changed “execution” to “persecution.”)
On the tolerance question, man that’s hard to apply at a societal level. On the individual level I’d say tolerate until behaviour is unsafe… but that can be hard to define. Tricky is maybe a better word.
It was frustrating to see you say he’s “called for the execution”, not because I like Trump, but because that’s example of the media taking Trump’s awkward style of speech and running with it - and it working. Listening to the exchange, it’s pretty clear he’s saying “let’s see how Liz would like to be in a warzone rather than in an air conditioned room in DC”.
I have a hard time viewing him as anymore criminal than anyone else in the cesspool of American politics, just because he’s been convicted it doesn’t seem to mean much, shockingly.
Karl Popper explained it in his paradox of Tolerance. When you extend tolerance to the intolerant they end up destroying you from within. It's the same thing that happens when politicians benefit from an open election system to win positions of power, and then use that same power to sabotage the electoral system to ensure no one else will take thrt power away from them (see Mexico for a perfect example of this).
It's a soft form of a coup d'etat. It takes longer and is less flashy than an armed insurrection, but it is more effective.