This was much spoken about at the 2018 Autscape: the paradox of tolerance, that can easily itself be used to evade tolerance and make it break down.
It is this philosophical poser: if your tolerance is unlimitedly of everything, it has to include tolerance of the practice of intolerance. But through allowing intolerance to happen, you lose and defeat the whole tolerance you were seeking to establish. Hence a condition of tolerance can only be enforced by giving intolerance some of its own medicine.
This problem takes the discussion down the rabbit hole, as debate on how and where to define and apply the limits can be endless, swung on each debaters’ own politics, and itself becomes intolerant. It easily and too often leads to 2 bad places:
- giving the deciding power to a moderator, an authority figure, who however democratic their appointing, can abuse their discretionary power and act with bias.
- the ideas tyranny of the Peer Pressured Left, agreeing to declare some ideas banned, and to be intolerant of anyone they interpret as trying to express them. This results in pouncing on folks accusing them of implying ideas they hwd no intention of implying, and shout down their defence of themselves: total intolerance and tyranny, claiming to be a structure of tolerance!
THE PARADOX HAS AN OBVIOUS LOGICAL RESOLUTION. WE RARELY HEAR IT AND IT GOES UNJUSTLY UNREALISED BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST ALL UNSCRUPULOUS INTERESTS IN CORRUPTING TOLERANCE. IT IS AGAINST THE PEER PRESSURED LEFT’S THOUGHT CONTROL, AND AGAINST EVERY MORAL TURD WHO FAVOURS EXPEDIENTLY PROMOTING EVILS LIKE AUTISTIC PRIDE DAY THAT VIOLATE FAIRNESS FOR ABUSED AUTISTICS, AND WHO FAVOURS PUSHING THEM THROUGH BY A MOMENTUM OF PEER PRESSURE.
The logical solution to the paradox of tolerance is: YOU BAN ACTIONS OF PERSONAL INTOLERANCE AND REJECTION. You have an anti-ribald policy, so that it is never allowable to laugh down any side of any discussion, or any voice disagreeing with a tide of peer pressure. You don’t do the Peer Pressured Left’s always intolerant tyrannical practice of no-platforming. You never directly ban an opinion, but because you ban actions of social exclusion and personal cruelty and oppression of identities, opinions in favour of those things become deservedly difficult to express in an allowable way, because to express them directly about anyone is itself the disallowed action of treating the person/group with intolerance. So the intolerant opinion either is forced to find a logical argument around that, for each time of expressing it, or is pushed back to the position of writing up academically the case for its own allowability.
That keeps in existence the free speech to argue for any opinion’s allowability, simultaneously to the tolerance provision keeping group or personal hate disallowed in discussions in social places. This is the balance whereby nobody gets socially pushed out.
Autistic Groups Fairness Watch practices this solution, this standard. It defends tolerance by opposing all power to do social cruelties. It stands for banning intolerance specifically by banning social cruelties, exclusion and ribaldry and group expediency, and for never allowing their use to be the proposed method of banning intolerance. When you see this set out logically, it is simply common sense.
Common sense that wins in every case – because to follow any other course breaches the safety of personal support and risks causing suicidality, proving it illegal in every case. Thus, because exclusion crosses the line of motivating suicidality, this line of illegality is crossed by everyone who argues for accepting and promoting Autistic Pride Day, it is always an act of hate and intolerance within the autism community ever to do that, and makes it a false community spoken for by ruthless selfish exploiters. The only line that is not hate, that complies with any tolerance ethic, is to conscientiously fight against and not tolerate Autistic Pride Day, from holding most ethically important that big scale ruthless excluders invented it. Because attitudes to that affect the whole autistic scene, it is a definitive acid test for identifying which parts of the scene are abusive exploitative and cult-like, versus which parts are genuinely ethical and inclusive.