- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
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 register 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.
My issue with your theory here is that you are putting yourself as the author of the contract. This is the tactic conservatives use, by saying some stuff and expecting the reader to fill in the blanks with their own biases.
You: “social contract exists, you should respect the contract”
Me: “what are the rules of this contract? where can i read it?”
You: “you know the rules”
Ahh yes, the rules… That you should dip your balls in the toilet water to wash them off after pooping. C’mon man, everyone knows the rules. It’s right there in the contract.
Maybe some day they will make an infographic about how your way of thinking is better than others.
I never signed a social contract. Your argument is false.
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.
I understand the paradox of tolerance. This “social contract” stuff is BS, though.
“Social contract” is made up by people who don’t understand the paradox of tolerance. ITT: many of them
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.
First, see my comments here where I learn a little bit and explain why I still don’t like the idea. But you’ll probably get the TL;DR from this reply.
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.
I enjoy trolling sometimes (mostly shitposting), but I’m 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”.
This is just called law isn’t it? I can understand that the idea of a social contract may have existed prior to the idea of “law”, but if that’s the case I am curious why the idea of ‘social contract’ is even brought up, if we can discuss it in the context of law.
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.
This gave me pause and I needed to re-read it a bit. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, is this describing a group of people selling the idea of protection (from death or theft) for the fee of being governed (and being punished if they kill or steal)? Again, not trolling, just trying to understand who the players are in this social contract, and trying to understand the period (which would have to had been in a maybe hypothetical period before conquests, or maybe there’s just no ‘selling’ / consent and the ‘social contract’ is entered into by way of knights and swords and the threat of death if you don’t comply).
rights which everyone has but in practice few people use because most people prefer peace and to be left alone.
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.
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.
This is where I think it’s important to make the distinction of exactly what a social contract is, because at this point it sounds like anything between:
- a mob offering protection in the form of payment of some sort
- a country that offers you legal immigration literally selling you on the idea of life in that country because they need more of your profession in their country badly.
- a goverment waring and taking over your land and imposing new laws on you which you did not consent to. (“if you don’t like it, you can leave!”)
- what I just said, but you can’t leave (north korea, except for the waring).
But again, this sounds like law, governance and in some cases, depending on the discussion topic, taxation.
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.
This sounds like “If you don’t like it, you can leave”. And it sounds like law, and governance.
If that’s the case, we know the ‘social contract’ is legal, but is it moral? Does the ‘social contract’ benefit society? And most importantly what happens when one social contract explicitly states that the other social contracts cannot exist?
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?
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?
Ultimately, I think it always ends up at the paradox, if you take any of these things to there logical conclusions. It would be great if we could convert nazis via discussion and logical debate, and indeed I enjoy seeing it when it happens. But a group seeking to eliminate a population will start working to eliminate that population. A society is what we make it. “We” being the people that want to build said society. Nazis are trying to make themselves part of society, and in the society I exist in, they have never been allowed. Nazi isn’t a protected class, or something we can’t change like skin color or where we were born. Nazi is an agenda, and the agenda is to institute their ‘social contract’ upon us, when it isn’t compatible. If show up when they show up, and shit on their parade, run them out of town, unmask their indentities and dox them online, we’re just obeying their social contract against their own.
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?
Jesus Christ just go watch the Harvard justice series on YouTube. “The social contact” already has a definition that is understood and agreed upon.
understood and agreed upon by whom? This isn’t a scientific consensus thing here. There’s some problems with the theory, at least when it comes to using it in conversation as any sort of meaningful model.
Are you autistic?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
I mean that actually, this is like the most pedantic overanalyzing take possible.
Well that’s just like, your opinion, man.
If you are you need to work on it.
Work on what? I’ll give you an example: You need to work on your communication. You are insinuating that you are correct, that I am incorrect, but you’re not using words to explain this, you’re just throwing out psychological diagnoses and telling me I need to work on what… not thinking?
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.
I live in society. Your argument is invalid.
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.
I never signed a social contract. Your argument is invalid.
Unless, can you produce this social contract that I signed?
Can you share with me what the consequences are of this social contract that I signed?
What is the wording of this social contract? Can I find it online?
Do I need a notary public to sign this social contract if I find it something that’s worth my while?
Do you think contracts are things that people enter into without agreeing to them first?
Who is this contract with? Who authored this contract?
Who keeps this contract on file?
Most importantly…
Who wrote this contract?
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.
You’re describing taxation. I’m not wrong.
If you’re the one who came up with this idea of a social contract, you’re certainly not selling the idea very well.
deleted by creator
Agreed, the social contract does not exist!
His name is dipshit doesn’t understand metaphor
His name is dipshit, and he’s a single-celled organism
I understand the scientific method.
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.
So, who is signing what contract with Russia and Ukraine? How do people agree or disagree with that contract? What options do they have?
Can we please call things what they are?
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.
Here’s the thing, at what point is it necessary to prevent intolerance? Should people not be tolerated for having their own beliefs? Is it only necessary when they attempt to have an impact on other people’s lives?
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.
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 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
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…
