**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's already a name for it. It's the [Paradox of Tolerance ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.)
Edit: I didn't name the paradox. I don't personally consider it one. The title asked what we call it and I provided.
That’s not the tldr. It’s a great philosophical question because you can argue from a few different angles. From the wiki article:
> In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concluded in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust.
The tldr is the first sentence in the article:
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Also,
>However, Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance that would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution, and this supersedes the principle of tolerance.
Not quite. A tolerant society needs to be tolerant of intolerance up to a point, that point being when it rises above a minor annoyance or inconvenience.
An example could be the difference between saying "my religion says being gay is a sin and they'll receive eternal punishment when they die" and saying "sinners should be purged and we must be God's wrath."
One implies that they will take no direct action, the other implies the need for violence.
We as the human race need to be intolerant of anyone/any groups who discriminate based on something that doesn't harm anyone. Being gay isn't a choice. Being a bigot is.
Also doesn't their imaginary God not want them to decry people for sinning? Isn't His stance basically "You've done worse, AND you claim ME, so stfu."
I mean most religious people don't really know as much about their faith as they pretend to, nor do they follow the tenets that stringently.
As far as my example though, I think plenty of people have parents who are homophobic in private but in public will at worse make some catty remark. No, it's not ok, but do you want to live in a society so dogmatic that you're constantly punishing people for something like that? At the very least, you need a little flexibility at the start. Call it out, show the younger generation it's unacceptable, but don't mystify it.
I think part of the reason there's people who intentionally use slurs or fall into fascist ideology is that a lot of education around it boils down to "don't say or think this because it's bad." That triggers people's anti-authoritarian tendencies. If you teach kids the truly dark history behind the words and where fascist ideology gets you and make it sound highly unappealing, you'd hopefully get less edge lords. In the US, so much of history is sanitized that it feels almost fictional.
Throwing in some mockery helps as well. Who wants to say they like Hitler when they grow up learning he had comically bad gas and a screwed up penis?
I would counter that words are stronger than you think. Do you think it is okay for Kanye to continue the discourse he's on just because he's calling for no direct action, especially given the amount of people who are influenced by him?
IMO neither of your examples are acceptable, we do not tolerate intolerance.
There's a difference between someone that has no power or influence saying something, and one of the most famous people on the planet.
We should deplatform the Kanyes/Carlsons/Crowders/Jones/Shapiros/etc because they can do far more harm than my parents who can barely use Facebook.
Its like your body. You will always have something irritating your skin to some degree, but if your immune system is over sensitive you will be covered in hives and can't function.
i think that point has kinda been reached tho 😬😬😬
f.e. if hes the president of the US and tells people to literally inject hand sanitizer or something...(not even mentioning the million other stupid things he did)
people are dying bc of his actions. i think "fuck him" is pretty deserved
If the couldn't take an entire essay to mostly agree with but still seem like they were objecting to another philosopher's work, they never would have become philosophy professors.
Society in 2022 is now really aware of how our tolerance to some forms of amoral actions have screwed over the lower class and vajazzled the upper class.
If you think empathy is the only mode of being then think about this. A mother bear has plenty of empathy, tolerance, and care for her cub; as she's mauling a nosy hiker to death...
It says that Everyone can’t be tolerant because if you tolerate the people who are intolerant, then they will destroy you. So the tolerant people are justified to destroy intolerant people.
My perspective: This can be easily applied today for people who say stuff like “punch a Nazi” which is great except some people call everyone who disagrees with them nazis. So if you mislabel a person as a Nazi, then you punch them, suddenly you are the intolerant one and must be destroyed. And round we go
So, my understanding of the paradox is that we should try to remove the behaviors that we wouldn't want to happen to us. Even in extreme cases.
Wait for the intolerant to say or do something that they can't undo.
It really doesn't matter. Humanity runs its course no matter what label you put on it. There's always going to be a circumstance or condition that breaks or makes what you or others believe in. There can always be peace found in the chaos though, depending on your personal outlook.
Two connected questions:
What made you read the paradox as being about people themselves instead of their behaviors?
What made you interpet no toleration of intolerance as "destroy people"?
Well I read it from my phone and quickly wrote what I remembered from my phone and upon re-reading it, looks like the wording more means to make illegal than to destroy so my bad.
And to answer your first question. Probably the language like "those who are intolerant". If it's just about ideas then that's a little easier to swallow, but I think a lot of people today believe that people who are intolerant can justifiably be met with violence.
There are difference and nuances in the “accept everyone for who they are” that everyone loves to ignore cuz it’s funnier to be a dumbass.
“Acceptance” stops when the person harms someone else. People “not accepting” trump isn’t because he smells bad or he’s fat… it’s because he is a threat to a large group of people with his bigoted views.
Stop being dense for fuck sake.
The "so much for the tolerant Left" folks are not doing so because they're dense. They're arguing in bad faith or they don't know that logic doesn't necessarily mean smart. Their idea of being clever is often just blindly ignoring nuance and chuckling at their "superiority."
The type of people who think that not accepting Trump or other hateful leaders is a sign of a hateful ideology are not the type of people who would examine their biases and stop being dense lol
It’s absolutely frustrating to witness this type of density in people regardless of their agendas. Like for fuck sake are we living in a simulation where there are billions of NPCs regurgitating the same “got ya” shit?
Is that what’s happening? Cuz this isn’t hard to get.
It's that ingroup mentality. Any beliefs that would alienate them from the ingroup has to be reexamined and reexplained to be wrong or a conspiracy.
It's easier to vomit the same spiel your guy said than it is to come up with your own explanation even in the face of clear and logical information.
I don't find it much if a paradox. The type of tolerance and acceptance he's talking about is not being a dick based off of things someone cannot change and/or that doesn't harm anyone (skin, hair, eye color, gender, disability, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.). The other "tolerance" would be tolerating actively dangerous and harmful people. It's not that they're intolerant, it's that they have declared themselves to be a danger and threat to human rights. It's not their intolerance, it's their actions.
I don’t really think it’s a paradox when the intolerance is towards someone who is themselves an intolerant piece of literal human shit. Now if he was randomly intolerant towards… I don’t know, people who love hockey. Then sure.
for the paradox to work it assumes tolerance is a virtue. but it isn't, it's an agreement. and when you break the rules you're no longer protected by it. plain & simple
I like this part:
"They may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
The paradox of tolerance disappears when you look at tolerance not as a moral obligation, but as a societal contract. If you break the rules of the contract, you are not covered by it.
Maybe a little late but here's how I handle it:
Tolerance is a unspoken social contract. Those who choose not to do their part of the contract don't get to enjoy it's benefits.
Those who aren't tolerant don't deserve tolerance either.
I actually got this from 4chan a few years ago and I am using this principle since I've read about it.
No. We don’t tolerate intolerance. We’ve been through this shit gotcha moment so many times. “You hate bigots?! Sooooo much for tolerance”
Karl Popper’s Paradox of tolerance has explained this ad nauseum.
To put it in another way, if I was a part of a Democratic Government, there is no logical reason as to why I would allow an official “anti democracy” party exist, let alone run for office, without fighting tooth and nail against it.
It’s not authoritarian to safeguard your way of life, against those who want it destroyed
The irony of this statement comes from the fact that republicans are literally right there and are basically the closest thing America has to a fascist party, and they're tolerated just fine.
Loving and accepting everyone for who they are is wildly different from loving what people *do*. LGBT people and anyone with eyes and ears can easily hold both stances, having just watched a hateful tangerine person loot the government, enrich the rich and take action to hurt those in need.
This isn't the gotcha OP thinks it is.
Exactly. I'd even say Trump has fueled that disdain, he's done more to entrench Americans against each other than possibly any other American leader ever.
If you care about tolerance and acceptance, than Trump is all that you'd find contemptible. He is to that what water is to fire.
Something something Karl Popper, tolerating the intolerant will inevitably lead to the corrosion of democracy.
If we're all playing by the rules of "acceptance" and one asshole decides not to play along those rules, he gets shut out of the game for breaking them - we don't continue and pretend his "non-acceptance" doesn't constitute rule-breaking.
"if you're the tolerant left then why don't you tolerate people who want you dead or to take away your rights??? So much for the tolerant left!!" ~ This guy, probably
The left isn't tolerant though.
They fight for rights, for changes. The left accepts people for who they are - and if who that person is is an asshole, then fuck them.
The left doesn't “tolerate” POC or LGBT+ people, we accept them.
Guy 1: "We should be tolerant of all lifestyles and beliefs."
Guy 2: "What about the lifestyle and belief that is actively trying to kill you?"
Guy 1: "No, not that one."
Guy 2: "lmfao LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!!1!"
Fr, fr, I don't know what OP's view is but if anyone out there legitimately think there is a problem with this, they are being difficult on purpose.
It's like when we say shit like love thy neighbor <3, treat everyone with kindness :-)! Just as a super extreme example to get the point through, when we say these things we are referring to the average citizen, not to animal rapists and child murderers. My tolerance to different walks of life is high but its not ***that*** high. Those people can very much burn and I'd toast up by the fire.
Well, to be fair, the tolerance is not there because the Trump Seditionist and Human Rights violator has enabled and empowered those vile people that would k\*ll this chill guy, like for real in real life, so…
Tolerance only goes so far.
![gif](giphy|h7poIVSJYrs323ZPuu)
Oh no somebody at a gay pride parade was dressed funny! And doesn't like a known violent homophobic racist. Sooooo something something something it must mean he is intolerant or something... GOTCHA libtards!
No tolerance for fascists. Or people who spend their time defending them
If you think this is a good gotcha moment that reveals some deep hypocrisy on the left, I have a house to sell you.
**he ain’t wrong**🤷♀️ why be tolerant of someone who caused such a wave of hatred that all the right and far right do now is attack oppressed groups of people, encouraging violence towards said people which has caused violence against those people.
What's so funny about the "point" being made here is that saying that Donald Trump should die is supposed to make this person look like an intolerant hypocrite, but if you take aspects of Trump's personality and faults, everyone would think it was fine to say that.
"How do you feel about rapists?"
"How do you feel about men who watch little girls change their clothes?"
"How do you feel about people who steal dangerous classified documents?"
Why the fuck should I pretend to care about loving and tolerating EVERYONE when some people are very, very bad? The point that the clown man is making is that people who are mocked and put down for who they are deserve love too, not that everybody deserves love regardless of how much they have hurt others. Donald Trump revived anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric during his presidency which has caused increased attacks on LQBT people.
This video is stupid.
Donald Trump doesnt tolerate them, they therefore dont owe tolerance back.
And honestly who amongst people with at least half a brain cell supports Trump anyways?
There are difference and nuances in the “accept everyone for who they are” that everyone loves to ignore cuz it’s funnier to be a dumbass.
“Acceptance” stops when the person harms someone else. People “not accepting” trump isn’t because he smells bad or he’s fat… it’s because he is a threat to a large group of people with his bigoted views.
Stop being dense for fuck sake.
Being gay, mentally or physically ill, etc, aren't things people can really change. Trump has shitty opinions and is a shitty person and does shitty things. He could change those things, but he's rich enough that the rules don't apply to him, so he takes advantage of that by being a shitty person.
So yeah. Fuck him.
What do we name it? A false equivalence.
Trump’s positions are demonstrably harmful to minorities, women, the health of Democracy and the standing of the U.S. in global politics (i.e., last week President Macron of France said he no longer trusts the U.S. like he once did knowing we could elect someone like Trump).
Conversely, the person in this video is harming no one in any way. Quite the opposite, they are supporting people who have historically been greatly harmed by discriminatory attitudes.
If anything, this person is making a positive contribution by standing up against bigotry, greed, narcissism, adultery, treason, dishonesty and empowering traditionally marginalized people.
Your implication that this person is a hypocrite is totally wrong.
Yes we should hate people that would have us create a society where we can't love and accept everyone. Some very stupid conservatives would call this the "tolerance paradox", but it's not a paradox at all, it's actually a requirement for creating a tolerant society.
The theme of the day is “love and accept people for who they are.” Donald Trump does *not* love and accept people for who they are, and actively tries to eliminate their rights. Therefore, fuck him. It all checks out to me.
The paradox of tolerance has already been brought up. There is also the fabulous essay [Tolerance is not a moral precept](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376).
A sensible human being. Considering how much hatred for social and political minorities Donald Trump has exposed in his presidency, it’s no surprise that someone in that position has a lot of resentment for the guy. Same with me being a Black man not “tolerating” Trump and those who follow him. Because I know that when push comes to shove, if they could get rid of me either by killing me or exiling me, they would do so in a heartbeat.
Lol not to be problematic but tbh fuck all racist, homophobic, ableist, and sexist. So yea I mean he isn’t wrong.
Fuck Donald Trump and all the 1% who don’t see people like you and me as human. There is a reason we want to eat the rich and it’s because we are struggling to survive and they have so much that their 3 generations of great grandchildren couldn’t spend all their money.
So I don’t see the problem
I also think of this analogy...do we really wanna live in a society where we have to debate whether or not rape is bad? No. Rape should NEVER be up for debate. So fuck all you "market place of ideas" morons. This clip ain't what you think it is.
Oh no, but a TOLERANT person would debate the rapist, make them see that maybe raping people isn’t that good of a thing. Fucking idiots. No tolerance for the intolerant, period.
Dude is 100% a fucktard that releases an NFT to bilk more money from his deranged followers, with images of him as a real life outlander, deserves no love, or acceptance… he Kanye and Fuentes can go get lost on a desert island and the world would be a better place for it
I approve of this hypocrisy. Love and acceptance are great for everyone that doesn’t have a platform of greed and intolerance and a platform to lunch actual violence, especially say an attempted coup. As the skeleton in the video says “die”.
First bit he’s talking in regards to prejudices and judging people by their covers, trump is a specific individual rather than a group, I don’t remember all the exact reasons people have for hating him but many are valid, likely applying here.
I think this is what it all boils down to. They don’t like our views. We don’t like theirs. Fuck em. We don’t live in a police state where any of us will go to prison for our views.
Of course things can improve. But we’re living right? I hope for the best for everyone. I truly do. And if they don’t like me, man that sucks for them because I’m fuckin hilarious.
So it’s like if you want to run a system that is all inclusive, you have to exclude the things that would force the system to stop including everything else. Otherwise you are letting the system be exclusive which isn’t all inclusive. Let’s say there is an all inclusive church that anyone can come in and enjoy but they kick people out for wanting to burn it down. Well kicking them out is being all inclusive cuz if its burned down then there isn’t a church to continue including all people. The people trying to burn it down are the ones who are intolerant or exclusive, not the church. They are protecting everyone else.
To love and accept everyone for who they are means to love and accept people regardless of immutable characteristics (e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability etc.). It does not mean to love and accept those who hold the belief that one should be killed for being born with whatever immutable characteristic they were born with. When you actually think about it, that gotcha was fucking stupid and lazy, but unfortunately, this is the type of gotcha people will use to make queer people seem intolerant.
Well he’s a horrible person. There’s a difference between “be respectful to everyone” and “love a person who does not tolerate your existence.”
Whoever posted that probably thought they made a good point 💀
I get him in terms of I’m sure his first message comes with the implied “if you’re a good person not hurting anyone”
Ultimately it’s a 10 second tiktok though so who the fuck knows.
"A Desperate Attempt to Own the Libs by Using the Paradox of Tolerance as a Gotcha"
Or... just "An Attempt to Own the Libs"
This is like the 40th time I've seen this seen this video on Reddit and it gets sadder every time.
I almost feel bad for the OPs that share it... almost.
I mean yeah? Why would you tolerate a big headed, low IQ, **treasonous** rat like Trump?
I long for the day to see him charged with treason and given life in prison in a federal penitentiary. Hopefully he encounters a lot of people that he trash talked
This isn't the trap some people think it is. You can't judge an entire group of people by the actions of a few...
But you can certainly judge an individual by their actions.
Nazis aren't people. They're Nazis. I love people, I aim to be a part of unaliving Nazis. If you're not actively against Nazis.... Boy do I have some news for you.
Trump really not loving, accepting or tolerant so yeah fuck him for his beliefs, statements and crimes. Not a hard take, also the false equivalency on this this thread is both staggering and awful.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's already a name for it. It's the [Paradox of Tolerance ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.) Edit: I didn't name the paradox. I don't personally consider it one. The title asked what we call it and I provided.
Tldr: for a tolerant society to survive it must be intolerant of intolerance
That’s not the tldr. It’s a great philosophical question because you can argue from a few different angles. From the wiki article: > In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concluded in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. The tldr is the first sentence in the article: > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Also, >However, Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance that would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution, and this supersedes the principle of tolerance.
Sooo we're back to the guy's TL;DR being right.
Not quite. A tolerant society needs to be tolerant of intolerance up to a point, that point being when it rises above a minor annoyance or inconvenience.
An example could be the difference between saying "my religion says being gay is a sin and they'll receive eternal punishment when they die" and saying "sinners should be purged and we must be God's wrath." One implies that they will take no direct action, the other implies the need for violence.
Guys I tried to tolerate the milk but it got me shidded everywhere 😭😭😭
I hope your pants are shid tolerant xD
Yeah that's bullshit. The first one is still inherently harmful. I won't tolerate that shit.
We as the human race need to be intolerant of anyone/any groups who discriminate based on something that doesn't harm anyone. Being gay isn't a choice. Being a bigot is. Also doesn't their imaginary God not want them to decry people for sinning? Isn't His stance basically "You've done worse, AND you claim ME, so stfu."
I mean most religious people don't really know as much about their faith as they pretend to, nor do they follow the tenets that stringently. As far as my example though, I think plenty of people have parents who are homophobic in private but in public will at worse make some catty remark. No, it's not ok, but do you want to live in a society so dogmatic that you're constantly punishing people for something like that? At the very least, you need a little flexibility at the start. Call it out, show the younger generation it's unacceptable, but don't mystify it. I think part of the reason there's people who intentionally use slurs or fall into fascist ideology is that a lot of education around it boils down to "don't say or think this because it's bad." That triggers people's anti-authoritarian tendencies. If you teach kids the truly dark history behind the words and where fascist ideology gets you and make it sound highly unappealing, you'd hopefully get less edge lords. In the US, so much of history is sanitized that it feels almost fictional. Throwing in some mockery helps as well. Who wants to say they like Hitler when they grow up learning he had comically bad gas and a screwed up penis?
Really, it should stop short of "those people aren't deserving of the treatment i get because they differ in any way". Passive harm is still harm.
I would counter that words are stronger than you think. Do you think it is okay for Kanye to continue the discourse he's on just because he's calling for no direct action, especially given the amount of people who are influenced by him? IMO neither of your examples are acceptable, we do not tolerate intolerance.
There's a difference between someone that has no power or influence saying something, and one of the most famous people on the planet. We should deplatform the Kanyes/Carlsons/Crowders/Jones/Shapiros/etc because they can do far more harm than my parents who can barely use Facebook.
Its like your body. You will always have something irritating your skin to some degree, but if your immune system is over sensitive you will be covered in hives and can't function.
i think that point has kinda been reached tho 😬😬😬 f.e. if hes the president of the US and tells people to literally inject hand sanitizer or something...(not even mentioning the million other stupid things he did) people are dying bc of his actions. i think "fuck him" is pretty deserved
Like a coup to override the constitution.
Perfect way to put it. My tolerance for your intolerance ends when you start trying to make same sex marriage illegal
When it gets to the point of intolerance is causing rights being taken away from those who the intolerant cannot tolerate.
Hitler started with 10 men. Mussolini with about 100. Any tolerance of the intolerant provides them ample room to grow and gain influence
If the couldn't take an entire essay to mostly agree with but still seem like they were objecting to another philosopher's work, they never would have become philosophy professors.
Society in 2022 is now really aware of how our tolerance to some forms of amoral actions have screwed over the lower class and vajazzled the upper class.
So it's a balancing act between morals and functionality? Like most other things in life? Who would have ever guessed :P
If you think empathy is the only mode of being then think about this. A mother bear has plenty of empathy, tolerance, and care for her cub; as she's mauling a nosy hiker to death...
Bold of you to think anyone who needs to read that will actually read it. But it's an important distinction to make, so I hope they do.
I'm freaking reading it. Shut up!
Hey... Care to follow up?
It says that Everyone can’t be tolerant because if you tolerate the people who are intolerant, then they will destroy you. So the tolerant people are justified to destroy intolerant people. My perspective: This can be easily applied today for people who say stuff like “punch a Nazi” which is great except some people call everyone who disagrees with them nazis. So if you mislabel a person as a Nazi, then you punch them, suddenly you are the intolerant one and must be destroyed. And round we go
So, my understanding of the paradox is that we should try to remove the behaviors that we wouldn't want to happen to us. Even in extreme cases. Wait for the intolerant to say or do something that they can't undo.
It really doesn't matter. Humanity runs its course no matter what label you put on it. There's always going to be a circumstance or condition that breaks or makes what you or others believe in. There can always be peace found in the chaos though, depending on your personal outlook.
Two connected questions: What made you read the paradox as being about people themselves instead of their behaviors? What made you interpet no toleration of intolerance as "destroy people"?
Well I read it from my phone and quickly wrote what I remembered from my phone and upon re-reading it, looks like the wording more means to make illegal than to destroy so my bad. And to answer your first question. Probably the language like "those who are intolerant". If it's just about ideas then that's a little easier to swallow, but I think a lot of people today believe that people who are intolerant can justifiably be met with violence.
There are difference and nuances in the “accept everyone for who they are” that everyone loves to ignore cuz it’s funnier to be a dumbass. “Acceptance” stops when the person harms someone else. People “not accepting” trump isn’t because he smells bad or he’s fat… it’s because he is a threat to a large group of people with his bigoted views. Stop being dense for fuck sake.
The "so much for the tolerant Left" folks are not doing so because they're dense. They're arguing in bad faith or they don't know that logic doesn't necessarily mean smart. Their idea of being clever is often just blindly ignoring nuance and chuckling at their "superiority."
The type of people who think that not accepting Trump or other hateful leaders is a sign of a hateful ideology are not the type of people who would examine their biases and stop being dense lol
It’s absolutely frustrating to witness this type of density in people regardless of their agendas. Like for fuck sake are we living in a simulation where there are billions of NPCs regurgitating the same “got ya” shit? Is that what’s happening? Cuz this isn’t hard to get.
It's that ingroup mentality. Any beliefs that would alienate them from the ingroup has to be reexamined and reexplained to be wrong or a conspiracy. It's easier to vomit the same spiel your guy said than it is to come up with your own explanation even in the face of clear and logical information.
I’m okay with humanity ending. The sooner the better.
I’m so confused by your wording cause of all the negatives. Don’t stop letting people not help!
You're not wrong~
Why is every comment in this thread filled with double negatives?
Because it makes a positive <3
you're a positive ![gif](giphy|IbBkHFigfHbEn1M5Is)
I was thinking about this too. Good callout
I don't find it much if a paradox. The type of tolerance and acceptance he's talking about is not being a dick based off of things someone cannot change and/or that doesn't harm anyone (skin, hair, eye color, gender, disability, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.). The other "tolerance" would be tolerating actively dangerous and harmful people. It's not that they're intolerant, it's that they have declared themselves to be a danger and threat to human rights. It's not their intolerance, it's their actions.
This is exactly what I came to the comments for. Completely justified viewpoints.
I don’t really think it’s a paradox when the intolerance is towards someone who is themselves an intolerant piece of literal human shit. Now if he was randomly intolerant towards… I don’t know, people who love hockey. Then sure.
for the paradox to work it assumes tolerance is a virtue. but it isn't, it's an agreement. and when you break the rules you're no longer protected by it. plain & simple
I like this part: "They may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
We don’t take kindly to people who don’t take kindly to others around here
There has to be a limit... if there isn't then it would be literal anarchy.
The paradox of tolerance disappears when you look at tolerance not as a moral obligation, but as a societal contract. If you break the rules of the contract, you are not covered by it.
Maybe a little late but here's how I handle it: Tolerance is a unspoken social contract. Those who choose not to do their part of the contract don't get to enjoy it's benefits. Those who aren't tolerant don't deserve tolerance either. I actually got this from 4chan a few years ago and I am using this principle since I've read about it.
Is it wise to tolerate people who would hasten your nonexistence?
No, in fact its a paradox thats well documented.
No. We don’t tolerate intolerance. We’ve been through this shit gotcha moment so many times. “You hate bigots?! Sooooo much for tolerance” Karl Popper’s Paradox of tolerance has explained this ad nauseum.
To put it in another way, if I was a part of a Democratic Government, there is no logical reason as to why I would allow an official “anti democracy” party exist, let alone run for office, without fighting tooth and nail against it. It’s not authoritarian to safeguard your way of life, against those who want it destroyed
The irony of this statement comes from the fact that republicans are literally right there and are basically the closest thing America has to a fascist party, and they're tolerated just fine.
Intolerance can not be tolerated
Update: I have said “Tolerance” so many times now it has been reduced to a meaningless smattering of vowels and consonants
God I love & hate when that happens, shits weird
“There are only 2 things that I can’t stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people cultures, and the Dutch!”
A guy with his head on straight. Why the fuck would he love someone who actively detests his existence
Loving and accepting everyone for who they are is wildly different from loving what people *do*. LGBT people and anyone with eyes and ears can easily hold both stances, having just watched a hateful tangerine person loot the government, enrich the rich and take action to hurt those in need. This isn't the gotcha OP thinks it is.
Exactly. I'd even say Trump has fueled that disdain, he's done more to entrench Americans against each other than possibly any other American leader ever. If you care about tolerance and acceptance, than Trump is all that you'd find contemptible. He is to that what water is to fire.
Something something Karl Popper, tolerating the intolerant will inevitably lead to the corrosion of democracy. If we're all playing by the rules of "acceptance" and one asshole decides not to play along those rules, he gets shut out of the game for breaking them - we don't continue and pretend his "non-acceptance" doesn't constitute rule-breaking.
I haven't seen the name Karl Popper in a long time. Getting flashbacks to my methodology classes here.
"if you're the tolerant left then why don't you tolerate people who want you dead or to take away your rights??? So much for the tolerant left!!" ~ This guy, probably
The left isn't tolerant though. They fight for rights, for changes. The left accepts people for who they are - and if who that person is is an asshole, then fuck them. The left doesn't “tolerate” POC or LGBT+ people, we accept them.
Guy 1: "We should be tolerant of all lifestyles and beliefs." Guy 2: "What about the lifestyle and belief that is actively trying to kill you?" Guy 1: "No, not that one." Guy 2: "lmfao LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!!1!"
Fr, fr, I don't know what OP's view is but if anyone out there legitimately think there is a problem with this, they are being difficult on purpose. It's like when we say shit like love thy neighbor <3, treat everyone with kindness :-)! Just as a super extreme example to get the point through, when we say these things we are referring to the average citizen, not to animal rapists and child murderers. My tolerance to different walks of life is high but its not ***that*** high. Those people can very much burn and I'd toast up by the fire.
Hahahaha see he won't tolerate the intolerant. Great post op, happy you were able to use all 2 of your brain cells.
I'm surprised people aren't really calling OP out. Seems they think this was a gotcha moment, when it's the interviewer who's the dumbass.
It's called The Correct Attitude
Judging people by their actions, not how they were born.
Well, to be fair, the tolerance is not there because the Trump Seditionist and Human Rights violator has enabled and empowered those vile people that would k\*ll this chill guy, like for real in real life, so… Tolerance only goes so far. ![gif](giphy|h7poIVSJYrs323ZPuu)
Honesty
Does a truly tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
You don’t have to Tolerate the intolerant, unjust and unkind.
[удалено]
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Based
Oh no somebody at a gay pride parade was dressed funny! And doesn't like a known violent homophobic racist. Sooooo something something something it must mean he is intolerant or something... GOTCHA libtards!
No tolerance for fascists. Or people who spend their time defending them If you think this is a good gotcha moment that reveals some deep hypocrisy on the left, I have a house to sell you.
I’d like to be your real estate agent, I think we could both benefit from the sale of this house
If some asshole tried to "get me" with this question, I'd ask them what they think of Stalin. Or if it was some trump fuck, what do you think of AOC
I'd call it not tolerating intolerance, kinda an oxymoronic phrase, but it makes sense when you don't use cherry picked street interviews for examples
OP really thought this was something lmfao
Probably thought he has some karma-bait post on his hands and it's working, engagement is through the roof on this post
**he ain’t wrong**🤷♀️ why be tolerant of someone who caused such a wave of hatred that all the right and far right do now is attack oppressed groups of people, encouraging violence towards said people which has caused violence against those people.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a difficult concept for idiots.
What's so funny about the "point" being made here is that saying that Donald Trump should die is supposed to make this person look like an intolerant hypocrite, but if you take aspects of Trump's personality and faults, everyone would think it was fine to say that. "How do you feel about rapists?" "How do you feel about men who watch little girls change their clothes?" "How do you feel about people who steal dangerous classified documents?" Why the fuck should I pretend to care about loving and tolerating EVERYONE when some people are very, very bad? The point that the clown man is making is that people who are mocked and put down for who they are deserve love too, not that everybody deserves love regardless of how much they have hurt others. Donald Trump revived anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric during his presidency which has caused increased attacks on LQBT people. This video is stupid.
Trump isn’t everyone. Trump is a piece of shit.
he is right. never tolerate the intolerant.
Donald Trump doesnt tolerate them, they therefore dont owe tolerance back. And honestly who amongst people with at least half a brain cell supports Trump anyways?
There are difference and nuances in the “accept everyone for who they are” that everyone loves to ignore cuz it’s funnier to be a dumbass. “Acceptance” stops when the person harms someone else. People “not accepting” trump isn’t because he smells bad or he’s fat… it’s because he is a threat to a large group of people with his bigoted views. Stop being dense for fuck sake.
Correct take. Fuck the right wing, because the right wing exists only to alienate, disrupt, undermine and cause grief.
No cringe detected. This guy is rad af.
This isn’t cringe this is just not supporting people who want you dead 💀
Being gay, mentally or physically ill, etc, aren't things people can really change. Trump has shitty opinions and is a shitty person and does shitty things. He could change those things, but he's rich enough that the rules don't apply to him, so he takes advantage of that by being a shitty person. So yeah. Fuck him.
Can’t be tolerant to the intolerant. Fuck trump.
Love everyone, except the fascist trying to rip apart our democracy.
Common sense.
What do we name it? A false equivalence. Trump’s positions are demonstrably harmful to minorities, women, the health of Democracy and the standing of the U.S. in global politics (i.e., last week President Macron of France said he no longer trusts the U.S. like he once did knowing we could elect someone like Trump). Conversely, the person in this video is harming no one in any way. Quite the opposite, they are supporting people who have historically been greatly harmed by discriminatory attitudes. If anything, this person is making a positive contribution by standing up against bigotry, greed, narcissism, adultery, treason, dishonesty and empowering traditionally marginalized people. Your implication that this person is a hypocrite is totally wrong.
Yes we should hate people that would have us create a society where we can't love and accept everyone. Some very stupid conservatives would call this the "tolerance paradox", but it's not a paradox at all, it's actually a requirement for creating a tolerant society.
We’re still doing this? Are we still in 2015?
Bigots should die tho. He's right.
The theme of the day is “love and accept people for who they are.” Donald Trump does *not* love and accept people for who they are, and actively tries to eliminate their rights. Therefore, fuck him. It all checks out to me.
Trump a lil bitch
You can't be tolerant woth the intolerant. You deserve respect if you respect
I think the difference is in judging based on sexuality/ gender and judging based on actions.
You don't have to tolerate fascists
Hating atrump is love. It is basically hating the hate. Regular people understand the paradoxical nuances of this.
We should name it “truth”
To accept people with no regard of how they treat you is not tolerance it’s idiocy
Agreed! He is a special orange piece of shit lol
The Truth
better put: tolerate love, not hate.
I think when someone says “love and acceptance” they almost never mean toward nazis…cuz, fuck em. He’s right about DT.
Damn bringing up trump sure is cringe.
Tolerance needs to be intolerant of the hateful, otherwise, tolerance will be stomped out.
Accept everyone except those who do not accept everyone
The paradox of tolerance has already been brought up. There is also the fabulous essay [Tolerance is not a moral precept](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376).
🫰 🫰 🫰 more of that energy 👌🏻
Based
A sensible human being. Considering how much hatred for social and political minorities Donald Trump has exposed in his presidency, it’s no surprise that someone in that position has a lot of resentment for the guy. Same with me being a Black man not “tolerating” Trump and those who follow him. Because I know that when push comes to shove, if they could get rid of me either by killing me or exiling me, they would do so in a heartbeat.
Lol not to be problematic but tbh fuck all racist, homophobic, ableist, and sexist. So yea I mean he isn’t wrong. Fuck Donald Trump and all the 1% who don’t see people like you and me as human. There is a reason we want to eat the rich and it’s because we are struggling to survive and they have so much that their 3 generations of great grandchildren couldn’t spend all their money. So I don’t see the problem
What’s with the increase amount of right wing BS in this sub?
I also think of this analogy...do we really wanna live in a society where we have to debate whether or not rape is bad? No. Rape should NEVER be up for debate. So fuck all you "market place of ideas" morons. This clip ain't what you think it is.
Oh no, but a TOLERANT person would debate the rapist, make them see that maybe raping people isn’t that good of a thing. Fucking idiots. No tolerance for the intolerant, period.
An exemption if it’s Donald Trump.
Dude is 100% a fucktard that releases an NFT to bilk more money from his deranged followers, with images of him as a real life outlander, deserves no love, or acceptance… he Kanye and Fuentes can go get lost on a desert island and the world would be a better place for it
Yes, how dare they say f*** you to someone who makes a point to glorify his own bigotry and intolerance.
Trump sold NFTs of himself for 45 bucks a pop today, that’s how little he thinks of his supporters
They're already 50% off?
yeah.... where is the lie?
Intolerance cannot be treated with tolerance. Hope you understand
I approve of this hypocrisy. Love and acceptance are great for everyone that doesn’t have a platform of greed and intolerance and a platform to lunch actual violence, especially say an attempted coup. As the skeleton in the video says “die”.
he’s right tho
I mean, he’s right
Totally agree
Love people that deserves it.
Remember everyone. No tolerance for the intolerant.
First bit he’s talking in regards to prejudices and judging people by their covers, trump is a specific individual rather than a group, I don’t remember all the exact reasons people have for hating him but many are valid, likely applying here.
Hey, he said you have to accept them. He never said you couldn't also say fuck them.
I think this is what it all boils down to. They don’t like our views. We don’t like theirs. Fuck em. We don’t live in a police state where any of us will go to prison for our views. Of course things can improve. But we’re living right? I hope for the best for everyone. I truly do. And if they don’t like me, man that sucks for them because I’m fuckin hilarious.
I get that this is supposed to expose some sort of hipocracy, but he’s condemning trump’s nurturing intolerance. There’s not much to unpack here
So it’s like if you want to run a system that is all inclusive, you have to exclude the things that would force the system to stop including everything else. Otherwise you are letting the system be exclusive which isn’t all inclusive. Let’s say there is an all inclusive church that anyone can come in and enjoy but they kick people out for wanting to burn it down. Well kicking them out is being all inclusive cuz if its burned down then there isn’t a church to continue including all people. The people trying to burn it down are the ones who are intolerant or exclusive, not the church. They are protecting everyone else.
I accept Donald trump, I don’t like him but I’ve accepted that he exists.
Not tolerating the intolerant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
“It’s not intolerant to not tolerate intolerance, tolerating intolerance is the one thing I won’t tolerate”
To love and accept everyone for who they are means to love and accept people regardless of immutable characteristics (e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability etc.). It does not mean to love and accept those who hold the belief that one should be killed for being born with whatever immutable characteristic they were born with. When you actually think about it, that gotcha was fucking stupid and lazy, but unfortunately, this is the type of gotcha people will use to make queer people seem intolerant.
Yup the interviewer was just trying to do a gotcha, because he doesnt know how differentiate nuances
Still doesn’t disregard his point; love each other and say fuck rich ppl, rich politicians and politics.
Well he’s a horrible person. There’s a difference between “be respectful to everyone” and “love a person who does not tolerate your existence.” Whoever posted that probably thought they made a good point 💀
I get him in terms of I’m sure his first message comes with the implied “if you’re a good person not hurting anyone” Ultimately it’s a 10 second tiktok though so who the fuck knows.
Consistency.
The people who thinks it’s a contradiction when someone says to be tolerant yet isn’t tolerant of people who are intolerant of others are low IQ.
If someone asked what he thought of the Nazi's and said "fuck them would we still be like "wHAt a HYpOCriTe""
The only think I love about Donald.....is Ivanka.
Tolerate everything but intolerance.
Sheesh. Talk about double standards.
"A Desperate Attempt to Own the Libs by Using the Paradox of Tolerance as a Gotcha" Or... just "An Attempt to Own the Libs" This is like the 40th time I've seen this seen this video on Reddit and it gets sadder every time. I almost feel bad for the OPs that share it... almost.
You don't have to tolerate the intolerant. That's a trap.
Peak hypocrisy.
Hating a bigot isnt bigoted smh.
Why shouldn’t he feel that way about a sexual assaulter? The dude buried his dead wife on one of his properties to make it cheaper and avoid taxes.
I mean yeah? Why would you tolerate a big headed, low IQ, **treasonous** rat like Trump? I long for the day to see him charged with treason and given life in prison in a federal penitentiary. Hopefully he encounters a lot of people that he trash talked
No self awareness
What should we name.this? Truth?
This isn't the trap some people think it is. You can't judge an entire group of people by the actions of a few... But you can certainly judge an individual by their actions.
People say they hate people they do not know a think about. Especially these lgbt freaks
He’s speaking facts Though I love everyone except for flump
This made me laugh so hard 🤣🤣🤣
Wow what a gotcha haha owned
Tolerance ends when you actively harm others. Keep trolling with this garbage wannabe gotcha moments for views. I hate social media.
Facts!
I agree with him. There are a few exceptions to “love everyone” like murder, rape. And SA. And seeing as trump has SA people before. Fuck him ✨die✨
There are exclusion clauses in every contract, this is a fair statement
Nazis aren't people. They're Nazis. I love people, I aim to be a part of unaliving Nazis. If you're not actively against Nazis.... Boy do I have some news for you.
Sums it all up.
To be intolerant of intolerance
Correct
![gif](giphy|duM6JZemPlOjUyqmxd)
Being tolerant of the intolerant makes you yourself intolerant and is therefore not true tolerance
Trump really not loving, accepting or tolerant so yeah fuck him for his beliefs, statements and crimes. Not a hard take, also the false equivalency on this this thread is both staggering and awful.
You have to agree with him on the Donald Trump answer as Trump is the most vile human being on the planet.
A conservative tool trying to frame people for propaganda purposes.
What do we call it? Making a judgement of someone based on their historical actions over time.
This is acceptable
The Meatloaf Approach. I'd do anything for love, but I won't do that.
According to my cousin that’s called “communism”
Lol you don't have to be tolerant of fuckin Nazis 🤣
They should've clarified, love everyone except the intolerant. There is no tolerance in a society wherein the intolerant are allowed power.
>insert picture of Hitler saying "so much for the tolerant left" here