Welp, I'm pissed

[u/AshBasil]

I work in a group home for disabled clients. At a house meeting a few months ago, my boss said something transphobic so a coworker and I (both trans) walked out of the meeting.

After walking-out, I texted her and politely let her know that it wasn't appropriate, which she was very coy about. Instead of growing as a person and doing better, she talked shit about me to (at least one) coworker, who proceeded to make a fake Facebook account and attack me online.

Because of this, I reported her to admin and HR, who promised they handled the issue. That's whatever, but this coworker is being such a dick that it's making work a very toxic environment.

Then tonight comes around (I work graveyards) and my shift partner called out for the evening for a medical emergency. Boss did not even try to find me relief and when I called her thismorning to ask if I would get any help with the hardest part of my shift, she caught herself in a lie and lied further. She said she didn't think that she could find anyone that late and then said that she couldn't get anyone that late. Multiple coworkers have let me know they were never contacted and that they totally would have helped me.

I'm so done with her bullshit.

[u/neallwest]

I defer to Karl Popper, who I feel said it best: "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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 most 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance (Proposed solutions)

[u/SarahTeechz → u/neallwest]

This seems like philosophical word scrabble soup to me...I apologize. My most recent encephalopathy renders my mind less able to wrap itself around such things.

[u/neallwest → u/SarahTeechz]

He's basically saying that there should be a limit as to how far ideas and calls to action should be allowed because if there isn't, then anything goes (racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, bigotry, religious-based discrimination, etc.).

He went on to say that if they (intolerant people - racists/bigots/fascist/etc.) don't respond to rational debate, actual physical force might be necessary to stop them from taking the next step and acting on their anti-civil ideas.

The reason that the Nazis, a relatively small group, were able to seize control of Germany, is because there was not enough organized opposition to them. They took advantage of the kind-hearted tolerance of the rest of German society and coerced and eventually forced people to commit evil acts that were previously considered to be unthinkable.

[u/SarahTeechz → u/neallwest]

There was more to it in Germany. Any opposition had to be in secret, as there was no allowable place for dissenting opinion. In the case of the Nazis, dissenting opinion would be what I consider the voice of reason. However, that's my opinion.

The problem with

Don't respond to rational debate, actual physical force might be necessary to stop them from taking the next step and acting on their anti-civil ideas.

It takes a leap to determine when a person's lack of response poses a true threat to actual action. We can't just assume that every bigot plans to act on their stupidity. This is why our legal system has protections in place for people so that they can not be charged prior to their committing any actual crime. Thought isn't a crime. Opinion isn't a crime. Stupidity isn't a crime. Bigotry isn't a crime. Racism isn't a crime. The actions that can follow such things can be crimes. But we can not assume someone is going to commit an action prior to their doing so.

It is also interesting that he is basically saying there should be a limit to how much tolerance should be afforded that which we perceive as intolerant.

He's basically saying that there should be a limit as to how far ideas and calls to action should be allowed because if there isn't, then anything goes (racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, bigotry, religious-based discrimination, etc.).

Ie, how much it should be...tolerated. I find that curious.

I find it absurd that we should become anticivil out of fear that someone else might become anticivil due to their ideas.

[u/neallwest → u/SarahTeechz]

The ideas on both sides aren't equivalent, though. Tolerance is about the freedom to live essentially however you want AS LONG AS YOU AREN'T NEGATIVELY AFFECTING OTHERS. Intolerant people want to dictate how others can live, who they can love, where they can work, whether they can realistically exercise their rights as citizens to vote, whether they have the right to protest injustice or unionize and strike when they have grievances, etc.  These are not and should not be treated as equally acceptable stances in a civil society.  One is benign and the other is malignant.