- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6541859
Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
You must log in or # to comment.
Tolerance is a social contract, if you break the contract, you are no longer covered by it.
The paradox is false. Society depends on the social contract; You tolerate me and I’ll tolerate you and nobody hits each other with fists/clubs/spears/swords/bullets. We all get to try to do our best to thrive. If an entity tries to take away that right from somebody, they have broken the contract. Contracts have consequences. Intolerance isn’t tolerated because it breaks the contract. If the contract is broken we can’t have society. People who want a society should respect the contract and not tolerate intolerance. No paradox, just a logical process.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Teachable moment here. Your reply is why the paradox of tolerance needs to be taught to everyone, even if it’s not perfect. You didn’t sign any tolerance agreement upon birth, but treating your fellow humans with tolerance if they are doing the same for you should not be something you have to consciously agree on or physically sign paperwork for.
Removed by mod
You’re speaking to two separate issues here. Seems like you’re on the same page regarding tolerance, so I’ll practice some more of that today and see if I can explain the concept of a social contract in layman’s terms. Presuming that you’re not trolling here.
In essence, the ‘social contract’ is a mutual agreement between individuals and their respective systems of government that states, “I will allow some of my personal sovereign rights to be curtailed by you in exchange for peace and security”. These curtailed rights are absolute freedoms, e.g. the freedom to kill anyone or steal from your neighbor - rights which everyone has but in practice few people use because most people prefer peace and to be left alone.
The social contract is what gives governments the right to rule - because governments are supposed to protect their citizens against the 1% of people in any given society that want to break laws for their own benefit. This obviously is where things start to break down when put into practice. Hopefully you can see how it’s supposed to work and why it’s essential for modern society. It’s a give and take.
If you don’t like the social contract in your area, then you vote with your feet if you can. Go somewhere else where they won’t care if you dump your night soil into the river, or that won’t give you problems if you decide to rob your neighbor. Places like that are usually pretty rough though.
Removed by mod
I think most people don’t want to kill / steal because it’s socially disadvantageous to do so. Cooperation that happens from communities, but also from fear of how communities may retaliate if you go after one of their own. That sounds closer to ‘social contract’ but I’d argue it’s less of a contract and more of a fact of life which can be observed in other species.
I guess the way that I perceive a social contract is like this, but codified and enforced by a governing body in the form of laws. In a perfect world, the laws wouldn’t be necessary, but there’s always someone who will maliciously shit the bed and they’re why the laws exist. Rational minds may think differently than I do of course and it may be simple but that’s how I see things.
And yes - if you don’t like the social contract where you live, you move if you can. Or you rebel against it I guess, with all of the consequences that either of those actions would come with. Morality doesn’t really enter into the discussion in my opinion because governments are not inherently moral in my estimation - they are judged by how they treat and take care of their people. If governments fail to take care of their citizens then the government should be reformed or replaced with one that will.
You liken a government to a mob offering protection for money, and that is an apt comparison. Don’t short change the tax man or they’ll throw you in the clink. Do I like that? Not particularly, but I do like the fire department and the federally funded roads I use, so it’s a trade off. I could choose to live in the uncharted, unclaimed woods in some backwater country and shit in a bucket to avoid all this cultural folderol, but I like my creature comforts and also I don’t wanna shit in a bucket more than is strictly necessary.
If one contract or group says another contract or group can’t exist, then we’re back at the paradox of tolerance again. Why do they think that way? Is it religion/caste/some other BS that causes this group to be intolerant of others? The end result of this difference of opinion, if not reconciled, generally leads to conflict. Better to talk these differences out if possible, you know?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
He needs to ‘work’ on his being autistic? Like he needs to tone down this autistic diagnosis you just performed in order for you to accept him?
Removed by mod
Then go live outside society. Your point is invalid. Use of the system known as society is consent to the social contract.
Edit: Your name is on point though, good job there.
Look up contract law - in particular what elements are required. We didn’t really have a chance to opt out. Fuck, if I try to just end myself I’ll get locked up.
Removed by mod
Yeah. If you’re in society, advocating for intolerance of others, you’re breaking the social contract, so now I can stop tolerating you and tell you that you don’t belong in society. If you say you don’t accept the social contract you inherently don’t accept society. It would be better for you in the wilderness. Wild beasts don’t have to tolerate each other. You can live how you like and hate who you want.
Removed by mod
Wow you’re obtuse. Have you never had an abstract thought in your life? You can’t see this social contract is a concept? It’s a concept that explains that If we all stop tolerating each other we’d tear each other apart, destroy all the buildings and belongings and everything, and then you WOULD live in the wilderness if you lived at all.
If you refuse to be tolerant of your neighbors, or allow others to be intolerant of them, you are saying you’re fine with a little bit of apocalypse happening. All those little bits add up and eventually destroying the social contract, destroying society, because it’s the same exact thing. Society IS the social contract. It’s not just buildings and roads and lights and pipes and farms. It’s the agreement that we want those things, and that since we don’t want ours destroyed we won’t destroy anyone who doesn’t destroy. If you’re saying that doesn’t apply to you, you’re saying you have a right to destroy as you see fit. That’s an amazingly brutal and egotistical position. Are you sure you’ve thought this out? That’s a heck of a thing to make part of your personality.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
His name is dipshit doesn’t understand metaphor
His name is dipshit, and he’s a single-celled organism
Removed by mod
It’s the same contract you ‘sign’ with your friends or co-workers. People, especially in this thread, break it out as some solid ‘thing’, but it’s like any other ethereal concept that gets referred to by a concrete word. English is hard and not every word brings along every element in every instance. You could say that an ‘agreement’ must have a written, or at minimum a spoken set of terms, but you could have an agreement not to physically fight someone just by a few movements of your body, and ‘break’ that agreement by broadcasting one set of signals and then taking a swing at them.
Removed by mod
I see this pretty often, but I see a problem with it. Bad actors are always going to exist. I assume that this situation would require a law that makes intolerance illegal. Which I am all for.
But in the US we are already seeing people say that LGBTQ culture is being “forced” on them. Now, I know that is insane, and I know that you know that is insane. But, those people absolutely believe that they are being “forced” to acknowledge a thing that they don’t believe in.
I don’t think it’s too crazy for us to assume that they would try to use the same legislation that was supposed to protect us from them, to destroy peoples lives. They would say that a way of life that they don’t agree with is being forced on them, and their culture is being destroyed. Lots of conservatives would follow suit.
What protections would need to be put in place to stop that from happening?
Idk if this is arguing for a law to be passed. It’s telling people “don’t let Nazis/fascists get away with it unscathed”. There’s no “I disagree but it’s ok to give them a platform” allowed- tell them to fuck off.
But to strip them of a platform. Changes have to be made to the first amendment. There is absolutely no way to completely de-platform someone. There’s tv, radio, podcasts, social media, blogs, discord, and the list goes on and on.
I feel like I need to say this every time. I too do not like Nazis or fascists. I’m just pointing out that with essentially becoming a different kind of fascist and adopting a “might makes right” culture of our own. That cartoon only tells part of the story.
Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.
LGBTQ acceptance does not do these things, no matter how much right-wing snowflakes claim it does otherwise in bad faith.
I know that LGBTQ acceptance doesn’t do anything bad. But, just as sure as you and I are that LGBTQ people are great people. The conservatives are that sure that they are a plague on mankind. Conservatives truly believe that their kids are in danger.
However, to ban the intolerant makes you intolerant. You would be persecuting the intolerant. I would argue that action would make you more intolerant than the intolerant people you are persecuting.
The only option is to teach our kids to be better, and expose them to as many different kinds of people in society as possible. While reinforcing that no matter a person’s position in life. There are good and bad people.
However, to ban the intolerant makes you intolerant. You would be persecuting the intolerant. I would argue that action would make you more intolerant than the intolerant people you are persecuting.
This is the Enlightened Centrist nonsense that this post is addressing.
So, what you just typed there is called an ad hominem fallacy. It’s where you assault my character to try and make me seem less credible while contributing nothing to the discussion.
In other words. Even if I were a centrist. If I’m correct. I’m still correct.
No, your character is not being assaulted, the already-addressed-by-the-post argument you’re presenting is. You’re simply regurgitating the Paradox of Tolerance again.
This post literally is the Paradox of Tolerance. I simply pointed out that every time I see this posted. They always stop at “the paradox is that intolerance can’t be tolerated”. But no solutions past that are given.
So, I was exploring what comes after we know that intolerance can’t be tolerated. I commented with 2 separate outcomes that I could think of, and both of them are deeply flawed. You latched on to one of them.
Great complete rewording of your argument there.
If force doesn’t mean at gun point they can fuck off.
To restrict someone’s freedom, there needs to be demonstrable harm. “I don’t like it” isn’t harm. “My god doesn’t like it” isn’t harm.
I agree with what you’re saying, but to certain people. The fact that anyone exists that doesn’t believe in their way of life is harmful. After all, remember, the people I’m referring to believe that just LGBTQ people existing it is harmful to the “children”. Before conservatives said that about LGBTQ it was black people are harmful.
I just want to reiterate. These are not my feelings. But laws in the US are open to interpretation. I know that the LGBTQ community is not only relatively harmless, and I only use “relatively” because bad actors exist everywhere. But, as a neglected teenager. It was a gay man that came to my rescue and asked nothing in return but my friendship. Dude was a fucking saint. I know first hand how important the LGBTQ community is.
But having tried to engage with conservatives on these issues. I can tell you that they absolutely believe the LGBTQ community is harming kids. Because laws are open to interpretation. This would leave a way for conservatives to use a law like that against people that it was designed to help.
What I’m saying is that if the hypothetical anti intolerance law had an objective definition of harm that did not include religious criteria (which is prohibited by the 1st amendment anyway) then it wouldn’t backfire like you suggest.
I think that requires an amount of airtightness that it couldn’t reasonably have, causing harm is always going to be nebulous. Shit even causing the Jan 6th riots is argued away with the idea that it wasn’t directed caused even though it’s about as direct as possible
But I’m saying that a law couldn’t be objective enough to keep out abuse in the US. That’s not how laws work. You can’t think of every eventuality, because humans are incredibly creative. So, laws have to have very broad definitions, and a sentence range. Because, context matters.
Then, you also have a problem, where you know you’re right, and I agree with you. But the conservatives also think they are right. This anti-LGBTQ thing isn’t just for laughs. These people genuinely believe their kids are in danger.
So, you’d be telling a group of people that their fears are invalid, and they just need to trust you or suffer. Now I know that seems like an easy choice to you and I because we know the truth. But, conservatives also think they know the truth.
So, what would you do if someone told you that everything you thought was wrong to just trust them, because your kids are just fine? Would you trust them?
I don’t disagree with you at all but I think this is only possible in an atheistic society. I don’t have a lot of hope for that in my lifetime unfortunately.
The US has an atheist government - it is right there in the first amendment - we just allowed the theists to stack the Supreme Court with other theists.
It’s secular, which is a bit different.
This comic is always posted and it always neglects to include the full context of Popper’s quote, which disagrees with the comic:
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 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.
The problem with this, as always, is that generalizing tolerance and intolerance breaks down as soon as you start putting issues to it.
Should we tolerate those who are themselves intolerant? The argument goes that we shouldn’t and it uses an extreme example, Nazi-ism, as support. Fair enough, we shouldn’t tolerate those who seek harm against others because of immutable characteristics.
So what about people who are intolerant of others in the case of MAP? Are we supposed to be tolerant of MAP folks and their actions because intolerance of them makes us the baddies? Should we punch the anti-pedophile?
So maybe this Paradox of Tolerance issue is a bit more nuanced than just “Nazi’s bad.”
Maybe we need more clarity as to what is meant by “intolerant”. I would consider myself an antipedophile, but I would not support the death penalty for pedophilia. I believe in having consequences for wrongdoing without the need for violence against or death of pedophiles as a class. But if there were a group of vigilantes or even government agencies that were actively killing pedophiles, I would say that could not be tolerated. So, maybe we can say “Violent intolerance cannot be tolerated”?
The concept references the law, but it’s worth noting that even anarchist societies have ways of horizontally dealing with intolerance. Diffuse sanctions, for example.
is this a guide? its just a paragraph with graphics…
