Do you *RESPECT* your political rivals?

[Revoltingest]

Re: Popper's Paradox

That doesn't speak to specific actions the poster would take.

 

[Quintessence]

Depends on what you mean by "respect" I suppose, but in my book, respect is simply a given. Disrespect, on the other hand, must be earned. And it is a very hard thing for someone to earn from me.

 

[Windwalker]

That doesn't speak to specific actions the poster would take.

This is the quote from Popper. I think it states it rather well.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; 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 whole article should be worth yours, and everyone else's read about what being "intolerant of intolerance" really means. It expresses how I would live out that view of tolerance as well. We are tolerant, up to the point where tolerance itself becomes threatened in its survival in a society.

Does Democracy Demand the Tolerance of the Intolerant? Karl Popper's Paradox | Open Culture

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the quote from Popper. I think it states it rather well.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; 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 whole article should be worth yours, and everyone else's read about what being "intolerant of intolerance" really means:

Does Democracy Demand the Tolerance of the Intolerant? Karl Popper's Paradox | Open Culture

That leaves out specifics.
I wondered about what actions you personally would take.
I've known posters who seem to subscribe to that idea,
but take it to heart in very different ways.

 

[Windwalker]

That leaves out specifics.
I wondered about what actions you personally would take.
I've known posters who seem to subscribe to that idea,
but take it to heart in very different ways.

I think you imagine too much. I take what Popper said as very much reflective of my views. Rational discourse should prevail, but if people are going to start threatening to kill people who they don't agree with, such as standing outside the homes of electors with guns, threatening to kill them, tolerance should end abruptly. They should be hauled off to jail, tried, and put into prison.

It's really common sense stuff actually. But I suspect you will hear some unreasonable nonsense instead, just because it makes for good entertainment, or something. Frankly, I'm kind of done with that. And that's just more a matter of personal patience with nonsense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maturity will inexorably happen.
Decrepitude too.

I don't see your idea of maturity happening. If people won't respect me, I won't waste the effort and energy on them. I've dealt with people's **** for so long I hope I don't start again. Especially now that away from a stronghold of those who deeply disrespect differences.

You are indeed a young whippersnapper....just
not necessarily to other young whippersnappers.

I'm not old, I'm not young. It would probably be nice to be treated like it. Amd in some ways that aren't about respect, but things I'm old enough to know about and have went to and remember. The best example was someone who told me the same exact thing I told my oldest nephew (he's 12 years younger than me) It's too bad you're not old enough to have went to Ozzfest. You'd have loved it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you imagine too much.

Actually, I'm trying to avoid imagining anything to attribute to you.

I take what Popper said as very much reflective of my views. Rational discourse should prevail, but if people are going to start threatening to kill people who they don't agree with, such as standing outside the homes of electors with guns, threatening to kill them, tolerance should end abruptly. They should be hauled off to jail, tried, and put into prison.

It's really common sense stuff actually. But I suspect you will hear some unreasonable nonsense instead, just because it makes for good entertainment, or something. Frankly, I'm kind of done with that. And that's just more a matter of personal patience with nonsense.

OK.

 

[sun rise]

I've heard talk that there may be a split in the Republican party, and those who are more traditional Republicans will break away from the Red Hat or Trumpian Republicans, which are are more anti-democracy, anti-otherist, anti-reality, fascist party. And like you, when it comes to that, those who embrace things like racism and white-supremacy, no, I cannot respect or get along with that.

I believe in the principles of a cooperative society that tries its best to be inclusive of diversity. But it is not a moral wrong to say we need to be intolerant of the intolerant, as paradoxical as that may sound. It is morally correct to oppose intolerance. It is amoral to tolerate intolerance of others. Is it moral to tolerate genocide, for instance?

The expression of that idea occurs in C. S. Lewis' "Great Divorce". Of course, he's writing from a Christian perspective, but the images are clear and applicable:

But it will not, at the cunning tears of Hell, impose on good the tyranny of evil. Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world’s garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses.”​

 

[Heyo]

Maturity will inexorably happen.

OMGs, I hope not too soon. At least it won't happen until 74, right?

Decrepitude too.

I've noticed that.

 

[SomeRandom]

I’m not American but I will give my answer anyway (didn’t vote on the poll though.)
Respect is earned and for me at least I can be civil until such a time as when my “opponent” does something to lose that bare level of respect.
For example when we had our SSM vote. I would be respectful to those who voted no, if they showed proper respect back to me. More often than not the No voters who voted out of their religious belief I could respect more. Because while we would definitely “have it out” usually I was afforded respect for my beliefs. And so I showed respect back. In my own snarky grumpy way.
Interestingly the No Voters without a religious justification were more often than not very disrespectful and often exploded into angry bitter bigotry laden tirades. Those people lost my respect.