Yes there is, and it's not on the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant.

It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. In practice, "the intolerant" lines up exactly with "my outgroup that I dislike", and that is exactly who you get points for tolerating.

Now if tolerance isn't supposed to be a virtue and you aren't supposed to get brownie points for being tolerant, then fine whatever. But that isn't how people act when they misuse the paradox of tolerance, they are still looking to get brownie points while just hating on their enemies just as humans have for millennia.

>It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant.

You're arguing with a strawman. I just want to have a civil discussion without it degrading into racial slurs as the bare minimum. Personal attacks in general should be discoraged, but I've been around a while and my standards are low.

The psychological question of morals and tolerance doesn't seem to amount to much. I don't think anyone would ever claim the internet is full of moral actors. but sure. The ability to accept and consider multiple viewpoints is a good moral to strive to.

Hence, the paradox of tolerance: in that you must reject concepts that overall limit your ability to empathize and expand your viewpoints. dismissing information because of superficial physical features of the speaker is simply ignorant.

Actually no, to quote a modern poet under no circumstances do you "gotta hand it to them"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Go back to debate class

My tolerance is not performative and fuck you for strawmanning it

His point is that you're not tolerating anything in the sense of the verb. What have you tolerated?

You recognize there's a wide gulf between "things I disagree with and tolerate" and "things like hate speech that should not be tolerated under any circumstances" right?

Like, I strongly disagree with the Biden-style Democrat. I think they are nonsense garbage centrists with nothing worthwhile to say and weak spines. But I tolerate them coming in and saying things like, "We should means test food stamps!" I also tolerate the absurd notion that somehow, Biden-style Dems are "the far left". I think it's hilariously uneducated, but I tolerate it.

I do not tolerate people coming in with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric. It's unacceptable. I will shut down, block, kick, ban or otherwise remove it without any questions.

So if someone posts "lesbians don't want cock" paired with a vomit emoji, and someone else replies with "I'm a lesbian and other lesbians thirst for my girl cock" along with an eggplant emoji, and then someone else replies with "sorry, but no to all of this; males cannot be lesbian" - which of these, if any, are you banning as homophobic or transphobic rhetoric?

Or, are you willing to tolerate differences of perspective on this issue?

This is kind of difficult to do in a vacuum; let's assume those are the only comments that these accounts have posted.

"sorry, but no to all of this: males cannot be lesbians" banned for transphobia for misgendering the second poster. Clear cut, get the fuck out if here.

No action for first and second poster.

Those quotes were adapted from a real conversation on a popular social media site where the first and third contributors were punished for their comments (i.e. having them removed and receiving a ban), presumably by someone with a similarly censorial attitude to yourself.

Problem is that this is part of the huge wave of homophobia - and lesbophobia more specifically - that has arisen in recent years from pseudo-progressives. In order to uphold trans beliefs they've decided that, essentially, homosexuality is bigotry. Everything that's related to homosexuality as same-sex attraction is heavily censored and shamed.

The once common understanding that lesbians are simply female homosexuals and that you can't choose your sexual orientation is now often regarded as an attack on people with a gender identity. And no acceptance or even tolerance is given to lesbians who boldly assert their homosexuality and insist that it's entirely off limits to individuals of the male sex.

Oh so you're TERF aligned. Got it got it

I'm aligned against the homophobia and misogyny that is so popular amongst pseudo-progressives these days.

Take your bigotry somewhere else.

Yep, this is pretty easy. No one ever has to say yes to an arbitrary sexual partner -- if you don't want a penis in your sexual life, rad, feel free to express that preference.

I'll disagree, I'm here for all stripes, and I guess I'd consider the vomit emoji to be way ruder than necessary for expressing a simple personal preference, but I'd tolerate that opinion being posted somewhere.

Denying trans people exist is transphobic. It's a ban in my book. If someone says, "I'd like to learn more about the differences between sex and gender... because they seem the same to me" I'm happy to spend basically infinite time teaching/explaining/dialoging. But if you come out with "only two genders" and "lesbians cannot have penises" I'm done conversing and you can get sent packing.

I'm not open to the idea that trans people are an illness any more than I'm open to the idea that gay people are an illness. No time or space in my life for that hate.

No-one in that conversation denied the existence of anyone.

What was asserted is that individuals of the male sex cannot be lesbian. This is of course based on the understanding that lesbians are, by definition, female and homosexual. From this it is clear that no lesbian is attracted to males or their sexual anatomy.

You say that you do not tolerate homophobic rhetoric, when actually - by stating your intent to censor lesbians and their allies from asserting the fundamental facts of female homosexuality, and prioritizing the sexual desires of heterosexual males who appropriate the language of female homosexuality for themselves - you condone and encourage it.

You post:

> No-one in that conversation denied the existence of anyone.

Then go on to deny the existence of trans folks. I ain't going to reply to all your hateful nonsense. Yours is the opinion that crosses over from "I don't want to hang out with trans people" to "I deny trans people", and I don't have to tolerate hateful people.

Please read my words more carefully. Nowhere in those two paragraphs am I denying anyone's existence:

> What was asserted is that individuals of the male sex cannot be lesbian. This is of course based on the understanding that lesbians are, by definition, female and homosexual. From this it is clear that no lesbian is attracted to males or their sexual anatomy.

> You say that you do not tolerate homophobic rhetoric, when actually - by stating your intent to censor lesbians and their allies from asserting the fundamental facts of female homosexuality, and prioritizing the sexual desires of heterosexual males who appropriate the language of female homosexuality for themselves - you condone and encourage it.

Of course people with a transgender identity exist. This is not in dispute. Relevant to the conversation I quoted earlier, it's abundantly clear that there exist heterosexual males who desire to be female, identify themselves as female, and want everyone else to play along with this fantasy by pretending that they are lesbian women.

Actual lesbian women are not obliged to accept this appropriation, though. If you censor their dissent while promoting the lesbian fantasies of those males, then you are encouraging homophobic rhetoric and are deliberately choosing to make a hostile and unsafe space for lesbians.

Silence transphobe. The adults are talking.

Go back to your wizard game or 4chan

You have brought nothing useful to the discussion, just insults and homophobic bigotry.

I completely agree, but you are the intolerant one for trying to censor people for speaking their minds.