Post #3490069
2026-06-28 12:01 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@rysiek@mstdn.social 2026-06-28 12:05
@mwl@io.mwl.io :100a:
-
@onepict@chaos.social 2026-06-28 12:38
@mwl@io.mwl.io @rysiek@mstdn.social I tend to look at human rights as things you have to look at together. Like Freedom of Speech must be twinned with Freedom of Association. Mulvads co founder doesn't believe in rights like Freedom of Movement. Our rights end at the point we harm others human rights.
-
@dzwiedziu@mastodon.social 2026-06-28 14:26
@mwl@io.mwl.io That's why it's better to view PoT in the terms of a social contract. Don't like the social contract of tolerance and safety? Bugger off from society! @rysiek@mstdn.social
-
@EndlessMason@hachyderm.io 2026-06-28 15:03
@mwl@io.mwl.io @rysiek@mstdn.social "The tough choice of putting up with people who are intolerant" just somehow isn't as catchy Edit: it's even less compelling if you don't call it a "Paradox" 🦆🦆
-
@Raccoon@techhub.social 2026-07-03 16:51
@mwl@io.mwl.io @rysiek@mstdn.social I disagree with the concept because I have an entirely different understanding of the situation. I'm not a tolerant person, I don't believe in tolerating things. I don't have to "tolerate" the existence of people with darker skin than me, or people different disabilities than me, or people who are queer in different ways than me. What they do doesn't affect me, and if I have a problem with their simple existence, that is something I need to just get over: it's none of my business, therefore, nothing to tolerate. I don't tolerate people who want to burn societal resources and wellbeing to go after minorities, because they negatively affect me and my fellow humans / citizens, and I don't consent to any of that.