• RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, actually. They rephrased it in a way that results in the opposite meaning. First they lowered the stakes from “we will not tolerate you in our society” to “mutual respect” which is very weak and vague language. Mutual respect is something fascists love both giving and receiving. Superficial civility is how they play the game. While they gain influence in a government they use police power to protect themselves from and later actively suppress protestors and activists while extolling the virtues of civility and the ‘marketplace of ideas’.

    What @masquenox@lemmy.ml said is exactly what I would expect a fascist would.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where I’d say the term “tolerance” matters is that some people will take negative actions against others in their lifetime - the question is how much leeway you give them on it.

      Say a guy you’ve never met steps into a shop you own, and immediately tells you to “Back the hell off, dipshit.” Ostensibly, he’s broken the rule of respect, and should receive none - but tolerance would suggest that if, a minute later, he says to you “…Look, I’m sorry for yelling. Everyone I’ve met today has treated me terribly and I lashed out.” then the social contract is preserved.

      Tolerance acknowledges people are not perfect, and will make mistakes. The paradox of tolerance helps us recognize when they’re not mistakes.

      • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That definition of tolerance isn’t the one that’s being used in this thread and I don’t think it’s particularly useful to substitute it into a phrase it’s not intended in