[FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant

[Steve Smith]

On 12/13/21 1:13 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. It's been in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the SCOTUS ruling: https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-abortion-law-supreme-court
I *thought* I was going from Amendment I to Amendment II, the fact of 
using guns (and other practical leverage) to assert one's 
opinions/preferences and/or suppress those of another.  I am acutely 
conflicted because I *do* experience the attraction of blunt persuasion 
and the threat of it (by others) at the same time.
> The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, maybe no longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good candidate inside the fast, good, cheap triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
I find the adversarial model of just about anything tired.  It *might* 
be the only common ground we can find when other strategies fail, but it 
falls short not only of optimal, but desirable for the most part.
> Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that *criticism* is necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames seems telling. On the surface, tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way to run the government ... gerrymander for your party because they'll damn well gerrymander for their party ... appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS ... etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST strategy for governing? Take that you consistency hobgoblins, overly committed to your Modernist [ptouie] paradigms. >8^D

Certainly *most* simple examples of feedback governance (population 
dynamics, steam engine speed controls, etc) ARE pretty simple 
tit-for-tat in their stylization.   If the "guilds" of subsystems 
interacting are more complex than say rabbits-coyotes or right/left 
politics then I think there *must* be more sophisticated governance 
systems.   The Constitutional (US) formulation of separation of powers, 
checks and balances, separation of church and state, etc.  seemed to 
start out just a tad more sophisticated but a little gaming over a 
couple of centuries has collapsed it back to (nearly) a simple push and 
pull on singular axes.

>
>
> On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>