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.

  • JungleJim@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    125·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • JungleJim@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        83·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • JungleJim@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            91·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                3·
                1 year ago

                The “social contract” is a well-known term to describe the very basic idea of a society, no matter what your political or philosophical belief

                Maybe you’d recognize it as “the golden rule” – don’t do things to people that you wouldn’t want people to do to you.

                  • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    3·
                    1 year ago

                    The social contract is a philosophical concept, Dipshit, one hundreds of years old. You can disagree with this concept, but unless you have something more than “I never signed a piece of paper lol,” your disagreement can be dismissed as petty ignorance. Or maybe you’re just trolling.

                  • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                    2·
                    1 year ago

                    This has everything to do with the paradox of tolerance. It’s literally its foundation.

                    For example, a healthy community would sanction someone like you until you ceased this antisocial and delberately bad-faith character you’ve chosen to be.

                    Let’s start with my blocklist.

          • dnick@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            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.