[FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant

[Steve Smith]

Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my 
youth, I was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except 
intolerance" which of course was at best aspirational and more likely 
just plain delusional.

While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat 
unevenly but not without exemplary exceptions,  it also seems to apply 
by extension to the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment.   As a 
"western man" raised on guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around 
guns and know that they can in fact be "useful tools" though less and 
less so in modern society and most especially for a vegetarian like 
myself.   What I am *intolerant* of is their use as tools for 
bullying.   Among my gun loving acquaintances (some to be called proper 
friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fact of their guns (and 
ammo and ability and willingness to use both) in the face of those they 
disagree with or disapprove of.   The ones I call friends probably don't 
even realize that their "gun talk" has a bullying undertone they don't 
recognize it is so "under".

I have a plethora of anecdotes (really, me?) on this topic but the 
general theme seems to be to alert and remind others that they have the 
willingness and ability to assert their will through deadly force 
*at-a-distance*.   These are not (just) varmint guns (e.g. .22 
single-shot rifles suitable for exterminating nuisance rats, squirrels, 
gophers, skunks, bunnies, raccoons, and even coyotes and bobcats from a 
dozen yards away) or even "deer rifles" (small capacity, medium caliber, 
bolt action, possibly scoped, suitable for killing a medium sized animal 
from up to 100 yards away), but instead most often weapons designed for 
*modern* warfare variously with the potential for *very* high capacity 
magazines, rapid-fire shooting (even without a low-tech bump-stock), 
specialized ammunition (variously for piercing armor and/or causing 
extreme hydrostatic shock) and precision targeting at a great distance 
(high-velocity rounds, extreme optical magnification and even 
night-vision).  When noted that such are not useful for any obvious 
*legal* or *sane* application, they stakes get raised to implying the 
need to "throw off government tyranny".   My "local" police department 
(Pojoaque Pueblo) has all of these weapons as well, and more, including  
armored personnel carriers handed down from the military (yay?).   They 
had them on prominent display for years but recently seem to have found 
a garage somewhere to keep them in, I doubt they have relinquished these 
"toys", I think I see them out for maintenance now and then.

I don't talk much with my gun-nut friends about their arsenals, I'm 
prone to end up saying things like "Come the Apocalypse, while I don't 
own any guns, I know lots of people who do, and where they keep them and 
whether they actually properly secure them".   This really raises 
hackles, so I don't even start down that path.    It all (including my 
implied threats) seems to be a (re)assertion/corollary to "Might makes 
Right" which is obviously compelling to the logic that builds and 
maintains bullies.

The paradox of intolerance applies acutely to the reality of bullies...

- Steve

On 12/13/21 10:07 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Pack the Court
> https://electoral-vote.com/#item-3
>
> Don't pack the court:
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3982144
>
> This evokes the paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
>
> As Trump et al have shown us, that sect of the right *will* pack the court when/if it suits them. Biden will probably decide *not* to make the attempt. But there will be no political will to pass a law *preventing* court packing. So the moderate Dems won't pack the court. But they'll happily leave the option open to the next Republican administration. It's an excellent example of how tolerance eliminates tolerance by tolerating intolerance.
>