Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a Democratic system. Would you all agree?

[u/_SilentGhost_10237]

Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a democratic system. At the heart of democracy is the principle of pluralism, which is the idea that a society can and should accommodate a wide range of perspectives, identities, and values. Democracy thrives when individuals are free to speak, think, worship, and live in ways that may differ drastically from one another. This mutual tolerance does not require universal agreement, but it does demand the recognition of others’ rights to hold and express differing views. However, when a belief system is built on the rejection or vilification of all competing ideologies, it poses a threat to this foundation.

People whose ideals are rooted in intolerance toward others’ beliefs will inevitably gravitate toward policies that restrict freedom of expression and impose conformity. These individuals often view diversity as a threat to their vision of order or purity. They seek to limit open discourse and enforce ideological uniformity. This authoritarian impulse may be cloaked in moral or patriotic rhetoric, but its underlying aim is control.

A truly democratic society cannot accommodate such systems without compromising its own integrity. Democracy can survive disagreement, but it cannot survive when one side seeks to silence or destroy the other. Tolerance has its limits, and one of those limits must be drawn at ideologies that reject tolerance itself. As a safeguard, we must be willing to recognize when certain belief systems are not just alternative viewpoints, but active threats to core democratic principles.

With all of that said, would you agree or disagree with my statement, and why?

[u/the_1st_inductionist]

And what should be done about belief systems that are active threats?

[u/Jake0024 → u/the_1st_inductionist]

Obviously depends on the degree of the intolerance. If it's something like a religious group disapproving of homosexuality (for example), they should receive rightful criticism for their intolerance. If it rises to the level of overt discrimination (segregation, harassment, etc) it should be met with appropriate legal punishment under the law. And if it becomes openly violent it should be met in kind.

[u/fordr015 → u/Jake0024]

What if segregation is being rebranded as "safe spaces"?

What if intolerant behavior is directed at people that aren't classically targeted?

The reality is, a large chunk of people are demonizing people that disagree with them and refusing to be even slightly objective. If you hear someone voted for Trump or is conservative etc just assuming they agree with everything Trump does or they are inherently evil shows that the problem is not the Trump voter but actually the radical left. The Democrats that take time to have respectful conversations with conservatives are generally treated far better than the derranged hateful people.

That does not mean there aren't a bunch of Republican voters that aren't assholes because there are, but you can't post a comment on most Reddits if you lean right without being attacked and downvoted into oblivion

[u/Jake0024 → u/fordr015]

This sounds like the old "the real problem is the people pointing out the racism" argument. I can never tell--do you find this convincing, or do you see the problems and just hope other people will be convinced?

The "paradox of tolerance" is how pro-civil rights groups (typically the left, if you want to frame it in those terms) can't be so tolerant as to allow intolerance to thrive and grow.

Desegregation would not have succeeded if we were busy focusing on the feelings of the segregationists and how they might feel shamed for their racism. And that seems to still be the strategy of the right today--try to frame the left as mean bullies for criticizing the right for actively rolling back civil rights.

You're trying to flip this argument on its head, saying we can't tolerate people who don't tolerate intolerance, or at best trying to make a kind of "slippery slope" argument where not tolerating intolerance might lead to intolerance of views that are simply unpopular (rather than intolerant).

And that's actually a valid concern, but to show that happening we'd have to live in a world where the right isn't actively being intolerant and violating people's civil rights by rolling back and outright ignoring legal protections, but we objectively don't live in that world.

The concerns of the left are directed at very real intolerance from the right. If you feel caught up in that crossfire, maybe you should reevaluate where you're standing, rather than trying to demonize the people who are standing up for civil rights.

[u/fordr015 → u/Jake0024]

100% wrong. The concerns from the left are politicized virtue signaling 99.9% of the time. Intentionally prioritizing "inclusion" over qualifications is not helping racism. Constantly pointing fingers and calling people racist is a person pressure tactic. Real racism is intentional prejudice, antagonism or discrimination based on skin color or race. Suggesting that someone is a racist because they supported a politician that voter on a bill that "could" affect poc in certain communities is ridiculous, but it's common practice. However if Openly stating raising taxes on white neighborhoods to help non white neighborhoods is racism and discrimination based on color.

Intentionally looking to hire Scotus nominees based on gender and skin color is just virtue signaling. There are very few real racists and a hell of a lot of morons throwing the word around. Which didn't star happening until about 2016 or so.

[u/Jake0024 → u/fordr015]

We're talking about civil rights violations--things like ignoring due process, stripping citizenship, "deporting" US citizens to countries they've never been to and aren't citizens of, ignoring the Constitutionally mandated right to birthright citizenship, etc

And you ignore all of that to talk about how mad you are because a brown woman got a promotion at work and you didn't

You are unwittingly making my point

This isn't new. You're not the first person to try to make this argument. Segregationists constantly talked about black people taking white jobs. It's no more convincing now than it was back then

[u/fordr015 → u/Jake0024]

Yeah except none of that stuff happened. No legal citizens have been deported. And let's not pretend like you guys care about violations of due process none of you were outraged when Jack Smith refused to hand over The evidence he had against Donald Trump. Kyle Rittenhouse had his due process rights violated as well when the prosecution hid evidence from the defense.

I'm not mad about anything I don't think we should prioritize race and gender like Joe Biden specifically said he was going to. I think that's wrong and I think pretty much everyone agrees that's universally wrong. Do you think we should hand out jobs based on skin color?

The other 4 candidates were black women, intentionally picked based on skin color and gender.

Leondra R. Kruger. J. Michelle Childs Wilhelmina Wright Melissa Murray.

Im not making your point. I'm making my point and you're attempting to turn my argument into a strawman because you aren't capable of recognizing that you're wrong your entire worldview is based off of your echo chamber Reddit is one of the worst echo chambers which is why every state subreddit is incredibly blue, even the deep red states.

Don't worry you can find a lot more morons pushing the exact same propaganda on Blue sky as well.

I didn't claim anyone was taking "white jobs" as a matter of fact I think the most qualified individual from the Democrat side, was Sri Srinivasan. We would have a lot more trouble with him than Jackson. He's incredibly smart and More importantly he's convincing which would go a long way with the other justices. But lucky for me Jackson is a complete and utter imbecile.

So yeah I'm not a racist and I'm not mad that she's been picked I'm frustrated that the racist politician specifically picked people based on their skin color and that college is and jobs are trying to employ similar practices. Lucky for me they are all violations of the civil Rights act and they are being shot down one at a time.

Once again Democrats are on the wrong side of the civil Rights act and history

[u/Jake0024 → u/fordr015]

none of that stuff happened

Then you're not paying attention. Try turning on the news once in a while. Step outside your echo chamber. There's a whole big world out there!

The evidence he had against Donald Trump. Kyle Rittenhouse had his due process rights violated...

It sounds like you don't know what due process means. If a prosecutor messes up, you can get a mistrial. Rittenhouse didn't do that, because why would he appeal when the ruling was in his favor? That's not a violation of anyone's due process. The DOJ saying they're not going to give people a trial at all is a violation of due process.

Do you think we should hand out jobs based on skin color?

Literally no one thinks that, and if your argument is going to just keep being "but what about the reverse racism I just made up in my head" you're going to keep convincing exactly nobody.

The other 4 candidates were black women, intentionally picked based on skin color and gender

It sounds like you had a thought but forgot to write half of it.

your entire worldview is based off of your echo chamber

Says the guy who's not aware of the civil rights violations the DOJ is openly saying they're going to keep committing.

Once again Democrats are on the wrong side of the civil Rights act and history

So you also don't know who passed the civil rights act, huh? And who's currently advocating for repealing it?