The origin of "outlaw" didn't mean someone was a bandit.
It meant they had broken the social contract, and as such were no longer protected under any laws
An outlaw didn't avoid civilization because they'd be arrested, it was because everyone else could steal from them or even kill them, and face zero consequences for it.
They didn't abide by the social contract, so others didn't have to either
Yea, all it took was not paying your taxes.
Don't pay your share, no protection of the law, seems pretty simple.
I wish it were an option nowadays, honestly. I'd make that bet in a heartbeat. Statistically id be so much safer I could make a case for my life insurance rates to drop. Statistically I am at my highest chance of death in the presence of a police officer, whether they're in the area because of me or not, so even as a bystander. If I could cut that cord, it's a no brainer. Also my car is getting 20 extra batteries dropped in it wired up in series for parking and pumping 240vdc to every metal part of the chassis. And my property will have a dozen armed sentry's that will fire on anything that moves unless you got the optics for it to sense friendly, which I'll just have implanted inconspicuously into a tattoo.
Certainly one possible lifestyle, however you could just participate in society instead.
You know, I kind of wish it were an option too. But mostly just so you guys can suffer the inevitable consequences and come back humbled enough to actually contribute to the society you benefit from.
I work in manufacturing so at first read this as machined tolerances are a paradox. Confused for a second but I got there.
I was half way through before I realized they weren't talking about making sure parts fit together...
Remarkably it works there too. If a part is out of tolerance then it doesn't meet the specifications in the contract and is discarded.
Why did she apologize for agreeing?
Some kind of advanced rhetorical technique, probably.
She could be Canadian
Somebody who teaches rhetoric sat through multiple debates about the so-called paradox of tolerance without thinking about the social contract once? Maybe I should just teach, I'm also incompetent at everything I do.
Having worked in public education for nearly a decade now, I absolutely hate your response and how much it validates those entitled parents who call my coworkers overpaid babysitters.
On the other hand, I hate even more the fact that your comment perfectly represents the career choices of about 7-10% of the teachers I know. That's far too high a number of people who decided to influence the life-path of children because they figured it's easy if you're complacent and callous enough.
Obviously the parents you deal with are morons who won't raise their little shits properly, that's not in question at all, but your comment comes across as "I hate your response because it's offensive, but also because it's accurate". Was it ever in doubt? Teaching has been deliberately underfunded into being an objectively terrible career path, you get treated like shit and paid like it too. The only people who will do that job now are:
- Incompetent morons who are willing to work for peanuts after being fired from half a dozen hospitality industry jobs, because school districts will hire anyone with a pulse who's willing to take abuse (Indiana will let you teach with a fucking Business degree now, cosmetology certifications for teaching math can't be far away)
- Sociopathic sadists who just want to be bullies but aren't willing to be correctional officers
- Miserable, jaded cynics who don't care at all and phone it in every day
- Idealistic lifers who actually believe in idealistically Helping The Children, 100% of whom will be beaten down into becoming number 3 within 10 years, except for the ones who quit for a job where they'll make more money and get treated better, such as waiting tables or driving a forklift
Is it any surprise I trashed the teacher in the OP? If anything I was being charitable in assuming incompetence, since we're rapidly approaching the point where malicious conduct will be statistically the most likely and will have to be assumed. Some MAGA-infested districts are already there.
It honestly reads like everybody is going to stand up and clap or something.
Don’t like to bash on teachers, but I have to agree.
I've never seen anything of any substance in the (so-called) "Paradox Of Tolerance."
"Tolerance" is of no use to me or anyone else - we don't owe people "tolerance," we owe each other mutual respect. If you are dead-set on proving yourself unwilling of giving mutual respect (such as, for instance, fascists or capitalists) you disqualify yourself from that paradigm - zero "paradoxes" required.
You just used different words to describe exactly the same thing as the OP.
No, actually. They rephrased it in a way that results in the opposite meaning. First they lowered the stakes from "we will not tolerate you in our society" to "mutual respect" which is very weak and vague language. Mutual respect is something fascists love both giving and receiving. Superficial civility is how they play the game. While they gain influence in a government they use police power to protect themselves from and later actively suppress protestors and activists while extolling the virtues of civility and the 'marketplace of ideas'.
What @[email protected] said is exactly what I would expect a fascist would.
No. I didn't.
Why do you think we owe one thing but not the other?
You do understand the difference between toleration and respect, right?
This might be fine sentiment in an idealistic way but step outside and see where we're at.
idealistic way
There's absolutely nothing idealistic about it... you literally entrust your fate to it every damn time you drive your car.
It's not that easy. Social contact theory can work when there's a relatively objective standard like "physical violence" but you'll often believe that the people you disagree with are being intolerant, and they'll believe that you're being intolerant. If the general rule is "I'll only tolerate people if I'm convinced that they're tolerant" then very soon no one will be tolerating anyone else.
With that said, I don't think there's a "paradox of tolerance" simply because tolerance is hard. The people talking about a paradox want to get credit for "tolerating" just the people they don't mind having around, but you have to tolerate the people you hate, the people you think are a threat to you. Otherwise you're not tolerant.
We get muddy when we move from "physical violence" to "the threat of physical violence". It runs us into the "I'm not touching you" game on one end and Nextdoor paranoia on the other.
Is someone tolerant if they come right up to the line of what defines tolerance and acts like an asshole within the strict bounds of the law? Is someone intolerant when they violate (often unwittingly) some local rule of decorum or social taboo? Is someone intolerant if they are startled into a panic? What if they conspire to sow panic without actually getting their hands dirty inflicting harm? If we're the victim of violence from an unknown source, what then? If we're the victim of violence that we falsely attribute, are we intolerant? Is the falsely accused subject now flagged as intolerant?
The people talking about a paradox want to get credit for “tolerating” just the people they don’t mind having around, but you have to tolerate the people you hate, the people you think are a threat to you. Otherwise you’re not tolerant.
More broadly, how do you tolerate someone or something you don't know or understand? How do you deal with perception bias?
I'm reminded of growing up in the 90s and having people freak out over "loud rap music". The media bias against young black men and their taste in music is very clearly an example of intolerance. But the dialogue of the era framed playing this music (particularly the edgy stuff like NWA or Biggy) as itself an act of intolerance.
How do you square that contradiction? Who gets to adjudicate the offender and the offended? What gets defined as tolerable?
OP's image doesn't really set that out.
This all makes sense when you remember that the underlying topic here is bigotry. Ergo, tolerance is defined in those terms. Not in the more general terms.
The right uses the "paradox of tolerance" to hide what this is ultimately about, a common tactic.
It isn't about tolerating all ideas. It is about tolerating groups of people different from yourself.
Put another way, if society has a rule "don't be a bigot" and then someone is a bigot and gets in trouble, is society bigoted against bigots? No. Of course not. Thinking that would be asinine. Society is enforcing rules against bigotry.
Bigotry is not a synonym for Racism. Bigotry is maintaining a personal opinion or prejudice even when holding that opinion or prejudice is unreasonable.
Can "Bigotry" include someones belief that a group of people are inferior because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference ? Yes it can but it's so much broader than that.
Someone can also be a Bigot by holding the opinion that only Apple MacBooks should be allowed on Airplanes because they are the only ones with safe enough batteries and then refusing to change that opinion when presented with contrary evidence.
Bigotry isn't about people, it's about ideas, opinions, and prejudices all of which can be positive or negative on literally anything at all.
We have the "Paradox of Tolerance" because if we tolerate anything, including intolerance, then we have intolerance. If won't tolerate intolerance then we also have intolerance. It's that simple and it's also vastly over blown.
What we need to do is reject the unspoken implication that we must have a perfectly tolerant Society. Some amount of intolerance needs to exist but only so far as it has a positive outcome. Intolerance of racism is a good example, intolerance of non-defensive violence is another.
The paradox of tolerance is just a description of how a virtue can at limit become a vice in practice. It's not a math problem for the oh so smart folks in this thread to resolve. One cannot be unbound from the social contract because someone else breaks it. This is why for instance even when we go to war we try to limit harm and when we punish someone, even a murderer, they are entitled to process and law even while we are punishing them.
You are always bound to ethics and law based on who YOU are not who they are. This is nearly the most fundamental fact of ethics.
One cannot be unbound from the social contract because someone else breaks it.
That's what "self-defense" is. Someone breaks the social contract and tries to harm you so you are allowed to also break the social contract and harm them.
It's not what self defense is. For instance in most civilized spaces you can't respond out of proportion, you are usually required to retreat if its safe to do so from public spaces, you can't continue attacking while your opponent flees, you can't instigate or cause the conflict and then claim the protection of self defense.
your honor, he violated my social contract!
where is this contract written and who signed it?
castle doctrine!
castle doctrine isn’t law in this jurisdiction.
muh social contract!!
This is how I've always described it.
Its not a paradox, its a contract.
And those that do not abide by it, universally, share a very specific end goal that is not good for society, countries, or the species.
this is where the old concept of an outlaw came from. the idea was that the law was something we all voluntarily agreed to follow. let it limit your behavior toward others, and others would limit their behavior toward you as well. an outlaw was someone who had, through their actions, opted out of the law. there was no prescribed punishment for doing so, it's just that once you became an outlaw the law no longer applied to you, nor did apply to others in their dealings with you.
It's only a paradox if you're a mentally handicapped bigot. It makes perfect sense to everyone else.
Or you could be like the teacher in the post, who loves the concept but never happened to think of it...
Nah, I don't need to think about it. It's an astoundingly easy concept to grasp. And it's not a paradox unless you're a pedantic knob. In a civilized society, you don't tolerate outright hatred. Very very very simple. I don't care if Nazis and bigots and transphobes don't understand, because I don't respect them.
The surprise here is that the paradox confuses people so much. Paradox doesn't mean bad or broken
Exactly! My uncle had a paradox. One was dachshund and the other was some mutt. The wiener dog was kinda an asshole but not necessarily a bad dog, and the mutt was kinda stupid but certainly not broken. Anyway, both of them eventually got old and died and he never really got anymore so I guess now he has nodox?
Also this kind of thinking opens the way for torturing prisoners, revenge killings and stuff. It's not nearly as neat a "solution" as they think.
I agree. We should not tolerate the lactose intolerant.
There's only two things in this world I cannot stand. Intolerance, and the Dutch.
Creating a society of clenched buttcheeks?
Tolerance is a moral or ethic, not a contract. Like other aspects of morality, it continues to apply to people who violate it, otherwise it would be legitimate to, e.g., lie to a liar, steal from a thief or, indeed, to murder a murderer.
If you don't believe those responses are legitimate, you have to construct an argument as to why tolerance is a special case among the other morals.
What counts aa morals seem to fall into two categories. Spiritually enforced dogma or morality sourced from a central premise of what behaviours we adhere to in making a society better to live in. Spiritual dogma is difficult to argue with because you have something supposedly above society that straight up dictates something that must be followed. The consideration places those morals in an untouchable space for those who believe... The second form often is more flexible and covers a lot of smaller infractions and changes with society, technology and so on.
Take littering. Littering is something I argue our modern society considers immoral. If you've ever witnessed someone throw something on the ground deliberately and walk away your reaction might be disgust because it violates an idea of mutual responsibility to make society a nicer place to be and it is a disrespect toward that social construct. A majority of persons sign onto that that is an unacceptable behaviour and shows a lack of morals.
Social contract when violated isn't always responded to in exact kind because reciprocating often undermines the idea that those behaviours make things worse for everyone. Hence if someone litters, steals or murders someone we either fine them or lock them up as punishment because they voided a social contract which has been further codified into law.
For things that the law cannot be used as a tool to stop it's more of a wild west. If someone dumps all the leaves they rake up in their yard over your fence then people won't object if you do the same or slightly worse back to them. The initial slight is considered the immoral one that we click our tongues in disgust over but the equal response to it might elicit a laugh and a clap on the back.
You're confusing at least three things: law, social contract and morality. They're related but they're not the same.
Not all crimes violate the social contract but, where they do, punishing them fulfils the social contract. At the same time, either the crime or the punishment may be immoral, but also may not be. They interact, but they're not identical.
So then those that tolerate the intolerance are also excluded from the contract, right?
Edit: this is a genuine question.
When you tolerate the intolerant what generally happens is you drive those who they target to need to leave to find other places of safety. Hosting intolerance means they are given new avenues to harass, select targets and make people miserable or afraid.
A lot of people have this idea that intolerant people are just people who want in their heart of hearts to be good and should be given that opportunity if you can only wheedle them into realizing what they are doing is bad. But when you try to include them in a mixed space all that serves to do is impress upon those persecuted that the intolerant person is the one who will be catered and adapted to their wellbeing is favored over that of their victims who are made to feel selfish or needy for just not wanting to be picked on. Apologists for intolerance give them secondary access to their victims
Even though it comes from a good place it is not ethical to host the intolerant in the same space as their victims and you can absolutely become a jerk for trying too hard to reform someone at the cost of sanity of everybody else in the room. The social contract isn't a straight forward thing. There's some gray area where you have contested coverage.
Also, what do you have to be willing to tolerate?
Do you have to tolerate people who are lobbying the government to lower the age of consent to 8 years old? Do you have to tolerate people who insist on having violent sex in public places? How about the local cannibal society that openly eats human flesh, but only from people who are willing to donate their bodies after they die, or who are willing to have limbs surgically removed to donate to the cause? What about the modern-day gladiator arena where volunteers battle to gruesome deaths in pursuit of fame and prizes?
It seems like if you're intolerant of any of those things, you're an intolerant, have broken the terms of the contract, and nobody has to tolerate you. But, while that might "solve the paradox", it doesn't seem like a very good place to live.
- No, because there's a good argument to be made many 18 year olds are not mature enough yet to consent to life decisions, let alone 8. We just have to draw the line somewhere.
- If they have consent from everybody in that place, sure.
- See #2
- See #2. Though that might bring up other issues like encouraging violence, etc.
Yes. If you aren't actively condemning intolerance you implicitly condoning it.
Is true.
But who/what defines where the boundry is between acceptable and not acceptable?
We all do, constantly, on a case by case basis. We know that if someone makes a sexist off color joke, they're probably just joking, and we can choose how much we want to validate or invalidate their tasteless joke. If someone is actively calling for the extermination of a specific group of people, we can decide on a case by case basis how severe our response should be to them.
Do you actively encourage harm to others minding their own fucking business.
Every time I see this question, I have to wonder if it's genuine. Are you genuinely at a loss to come up with a standard for what's acceptable? Is this really difficult for you to imagine? Or are you just pretending to struggle, for rhetorical effect, because you secretly long to be intolerant and are trying to find a way to pooh-pooh requests for tolerance? Idk. You could just be stupid, and "intolerance means not allowing other ways of life to exist" is too difficult for you to understand.
Because it always cones down to an entirely individualized arbitrary standard.
As neat as the meme is, it just abstracts the problem another level.
A level that still looks very similar to mob rule.
The thoughts and ideas that drive progress rarely start from the middle of society.
And in times of rising authoritarianism the tendency of the center mob to excise and exclude overreaches and leads to an era of fascism.
So, rhetorically, what im worried about is how the circle of tolerance always shrinks. Im worried how some use the line of tolerance as a weapon to control thoughts of others.
Is that stupid to you? Any other names you want to call me in the name of tolerance?
Second time I see that and second time I think to myself "Isn't that exactly what the paradox points at? Meaning that meme is completely useless?"
Yes, where is that boundry line drawn?
I like to think of it as multiple contracts or rules that create different and incompatible kinds of societies, and everyone has to decide what they prefer. E.g. do you want to live in a Nazi society or a pluralistic society? They are fundamentally incompatible, so supporting one means you cannot tolerate the other.
There is no paradox in this, and also no question about who starts the intolerance or whose intolerance is justified. We all just pick which path we prefer, and what we should do follows from there.
Doesn't this argument pre-suppose that we all abide by their idea of tolerance and then use that as evidence for itself?
Yes.
ITT: people positive they have broken the paradox.
But we should view it as a moral standard.
But then you have the paradox of intolerance
I disagree. We can cultivate consistent moral values, even if they aren't deterministic.
Yes, in an ideal world, tolerance would be a moral standard. But in a ideal world bad actors wouldn't take advantage of that moral standard by doing reprehensible shit and hiding behind "well you should be tolerant of my viewpoint" while simultaneously being intolerant themselves.
When we lose the latter, we can have the former - until then, we need to stop putting up with intolerant assholes who destroy lives (whether literally or metaphorically) and then say "but muh beliefs".
There isn't a moral reason to tolerate infinite bad faith bullcrap outside of a philosophy textbook where we are obligated to pretend our behavior is government by rules like a fucking math problem. Back in reality land we are free to reject bad faith bullshit which predictably leads to bullshit.
We can determine a consistent set of moral values, even if they aren't deterministic. The "but muh beliefs" people are just wrong, and it can be proved through general litigation. We have the systems, the philosophy, the legal know how and technology to uphold human rights. It just takes a lot of work.
So, where do we all stand on the "do unto others as you would have others do on to you" philosophy?
That sentiment is nice and all, but considering that a nontrivial percentage of conservatives literally want to murder me for my gender identity, I'm not going to treat those people the way I would want to be treated
That sentiment is nice and all,
That sentiment, if followed by everyone, would make for a really good and peaceful world to live in. It's something we should all strive for.
conservatives literally want to murder me
I doubt the majority of conservatives would want to literally murder you.
There are always a few crazies on either end that we all have to deal with.
for my gender identity,
My suggestion would be to live somewhere where the majority of the people you live amongst don't give a flying f about your gender identity and will not harass you about it.
And then work politically for change, maybe even running for office.
And if you can't move, try to find others with the same circumstances as you and network with them, work together, and try to affect change as a group.
I’m not going to treat those people the way I would want to be treated
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Human beings are easy to ramp up into destruction, and hard to keep passive into peace.
The reality is we can't all just go and do what we want, whenever we want, we have an ethical and social contract with each other that we all need to adhere to.
When that is not done, war and death happens.
there is no Paradox to disappear, nor there is a solution, a Paradox is a paradox, this is like trying to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma with some clever workaround.
just no.
Let's posit a society is totally tolerant, you have a tolerant society
if someone starts to act intolerant, you have to options:
-
If you tolerate it, then you now have intolerance in your society.
-
If you don't tolerate it, or put it another way you are intolerant towards there intolerance and remove them from your society, then you now have still have intolerance in your society.
that's it, that's the paradox, it has no solution or clever workarounds it's just what it is.
This also doesn't mean that not tolerating nazis and someone not tolerating the existence of PoCs for example is the same thing.
It's a clever way bigots came up with to try to show that we must allow people to be intolerant.
It's bullshit like everything else the alt right says.
If the primary rule of society is "be tolerant" and you break it, well, fuck you, there are going to be consequences.
It's that simple. There is no paradox.
bUt ThAt Is iNtoLeRAnT!!1!
No. It's upholding the primary rule of society.
it's the opposite.
It’s a clever way bigots came up with to try to show that we must allow people to be intolerant.
no. it's used by leftists to justify hating nazis, at least that's how it was used whenever I saw it in the wild.
Also if you look at the conclusion of the paradox, you'll see that it can't really be used any other way.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. 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.
it has no solution or clever workarounds it’s just what it is.
There is, and in mathematics we'd define it as Closure. We define a set such that operations on members of the set will always reproduce new members of the set. The problem with applying this logic to a sociological environment is that - in practice - what we're doing is defining "personhood" as membership in the closed "tolerant" set. Dehumanizing anyone outside the tolerant group is not - I suspect - what the OP was hoping to achieve.
That gets us to the "trivial" solution to the paradox of tolerance, which is to kill everyone. Alternatively, to kill everyone except yourself or to kill everyone who isn't in your tolerance set. Viola! Everyone can express perfect tolerance because the only people alive are the folks who share that same sense of perfect tolerance. We might call this a "Final Solution" to the problem of tolerance.
But like many strictly logical and mathematical approaches to resolving social contradictions, it isn't in any way practical or particularly ethical. It is a brute force approach to solving what is, at its heart, a problem of interpersonal perception, accrued bias, and political manipulation.
The real problem of intolerance comes down to the old Dunbar's Number, the upper limit that human brains can process additional individuals as people worthy of empathy. This is a biological limit, not a logical one. And it produces a whole host of knock-on effects that the simple logical paradox doesn't engage with.
The real problem of intolerance comes down to the old Dunbar’s Number, the upper limit that human brains can process additional individuals as people worthy of empathy. This is a biological limit, not a logical one. And it produces a whole host of knock-on effects that the simple logical paradox doesn’t engage with.
Dunbar's Number is an interesting concept, but it is a controversial one. For example, here is an article disputing it. Just one example of many.
No, I don't think reducing the tolerance paradox to biological limits is productive or instructive. Instead, I prefer a more religious lens: People are "religiously" attached to their chosen dogma (leftism, conservatism, centrism, etc) and view those who do not share their beliefs as either potential converts or, in the case of a failed conversion attempt, dangerous threats to be eliminated. We see this kind of rhetoric in all kinds of extremism, which is where intolerance invariably finds its home.
-
So, when do we demand global sanctions on Israel?
Watch out, that could be tolerating intolerance! Better tread carefully /s
Lemmy users finally being able to put their political science and philosophy degrees to good use in this comment section:
Im sure the 5-paragraph essays people will write arguing with eachother will be worth reading
And they all look exactly like this Pepe here!
All I know is the psilocybin is making text bigger and yet smaller.
If we define tolerance as a social contract and not as a moral imperative, we leave room for it. Perhaps it's true that a society only functions best with universal tolerance, but one can function in a society carrying intolerance. Either by hiding it or finding like minded individuals.
the magic of "consistency" aka don't c/leopardsatemyface
I swear, this shit makes it look more complicated than it actually is. In general, I just don't do to others what I wouldn't want to be done to me. There. That's all there is to it. Just don't be a dick to me and I won't be a dick to you. Easy.
What if the person likes being flogged and I don't?
What if you don't know how NOT to be a dick?
E.g. My parents love me, but they still have "been dicks" to me my whole life because they don't understand me, at all.
Their ideology on politics, religion, money, society, on what a kid of theirs should become, etc is so far from what I am and aspire to be that every discussion I have with them leaves me saddened.
Out of love for them, to please them, I refrain from outing my inner thoughts, my real desires. My parents get another version of me when I visit them. I want them to be happy, yet I am not. But I need them, because I'm kind of alone. I have this urge to please them.
If I had kids, I'd wish to talk to their real selves, not a stoic version of their take on my perception of what a good kid of mine should be. Blahh.
Sometimes being a dick is not searching to understand others.
Being a dick is also not telling others who you really are.
I don't think you're being a dick by being considerate of your parents. In fact, that shows that you still care for them, despite everything. But at some point you'll probably have to carefully tell your parents how you really feel.
As long as you're not hurting anyone/anything, your mental health is more important than anyone else's approval. If they actually love you, they'll get over it. But if they love the idea of you more than the actual you, then I think it would be completely normal to cut them out of your life, until they come to terms with it. Even if it hurts at first. That's what I'd do, at least.
Also, I get what being lonely is, believe me. At some point I got so sick of it that I went out and joined different hobby groups, even went to a few events that people join specifically to find new friends.
If you do that long enough, eventually you'll find people who've had similar experiences to you, and who you really get along with, who will also want to hang out with you. That at least worked for me.
I like how "don't be a dick" is downvoted. In a functional society you're taught what "don't being a dick" means to such a nuanced degree that defining it should be difficult.
Anyways this meme's got serious "and then everybody clapped" vibes.
Yeah, I agree with you. I mostly just got pissed on how it started talking about a "social contract". Like, there's no need to make something simple complicated.
Who writes the social contract? The in-group.
How does the social contract evolve over time if every single person that doesn't abide to it in its current form is ostracized? It doesn't.
It's not a literal contract. Tying theories about tolerance to it is more or less just saying "fuck it whatever".
The paradox of tolerance is of course a real thing but this isn't the solution. All it does is erode the principles necessary to even hold to the idea of tolerance in the first place.
Yeah, I just blocked [email protected] because their responses to the whole "Photographer wins right to discriminate" thing were just unhinged.
"Yeah bro he should be able to discriminate against anyone he wants and all businesses should be able to do that" Bro what
I definitely do not tolerate people who start their written sentences with "Sorry, as someone who [...]"
Edit: Sorry, I screwed up.
Sorry, I dropped the pudding
No tolerance for B E T A S
Try, "Fuck you people, I dropped the pudding" next time.
They'll be too busy wondering if you are expressing dismay or you did it on purpose to think you're just a clumsy goon.
different people have different social contracts. this is a weird take.
obligatory “show me the contract”. obligatory “i didn’t sign the contract”.
whatever kids. i’m still punching nazis. that’s my contract.
I disagree with israel’s social contract. I disagree with the North Korean social contract, etc..
Absolutely relevant for religion and especially muslims.
The complexity comes when you can't reliably group people. A lot of Muslims are tolerant. However, a number are not. At what point do the views of the individuals represent the views of the group?
Further, Islam is almost as fractured as Christianity. Does one group's view represent the others? Yes, No, partially? If partially how much?
There's also the complexity of mismatched information. What looks massively excessive from one perspective could look unpleasant but justifiable from another. How do we balance it out?
P.S. I'm personally not religious, however, I've learnt that a "simple and obvious" answer to a complex question is generally quite wrong.
The portion of muslims with the most harmful and intolerant ideas are the sunnis (who accept the hadiths as legitimate scripture), who also make up the majority of muslims.
In a british questionaire a couple years back, 0% of muslims participating said homosexuality should be accepted.
If tolerance is a social contract, then for what reason do we accept it to be one-sided with the radically religious? At what portion of muslims acting/voting to bring sharia to western countries would people agree that it is necessary to act? 10%? 20%? 50%? Never?
No one ever claimed that one label accurately describes the sum of a people. But if it's the only label that captures anywhere close to 100% of the problematic people, then that's the one you use.
Christians have shown over and over again to be very intolerant on a different level, and also Jews who adopt Zionist ideas. I don't think there is a religion in the world that has not been intolerant. Maybe the Satanists are open-minded and tolerant they seem to be chill.
Alright boys, you heard him, throw his corpse in the ditch.
Do you think muslims that believe that every person should be muslim are excluded from being tolerated?
Well yeah, read the smallprint. In fact, I would go further and say that anyone who's views are determined by an invisible magic dude who lives in the sky should be told politely but firmly to fuck off.
You people keep bringing this up like if its a dogmatic mantra.
We have to live among assholes wathever we like it or not.
And you have to live among people that dont agree with your views despite them NOT being intolerant bigots and you have to deal with it.
Get over it already.
people that dont agree with your views despite them NOT being intolerant bigots
There are some views I have, that if you don't agree with them, you are definitionally an intolerant bigot. I think trans people exist and are fully human. A lot of conservatives right now disagree with that; they think trans people are mentally ill and need to be cured of their transness. This makes them intolerant bigots. This itself is intolerable.
I understand that we have to live with these people. I'm not arguing that they should be executed or imprisoned for holding their views. But they should not be allowed to express those beliefs in some situations, and they should definitely not be allowed to enact those beliefs.
Uh, trans folks exist and are fully human of course but there is also a mental illness issue - their brain’s gender doesn’t match their body’s gender. This can be helped with transitioning and stuff but it is at its root a mental issue. Doesn’t make them less of a person and it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get all the help and support they need to thrive. Doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t call them by their preferred stuff either. But it is a mental illness by definition. Just one that we should help with without judging, same as depression or anything else
There is a difference between an asshole (yourself) and people who hide behind this 'paradox' due to their disgusting, hateful, and bigoted views. A pretty significant difference. One is just an annoyance who, you're right, I unfortunately have to deal with the existence of. However there are other people who take things way too far to the point of actively calling for the eradication, death, and other horrific things for people who have done nothing other than exist. They're the ones who are not dealing with it. We're just forced to have to respond on the same level.
Those are the people we're talking about. Not you. Not everything is about you. Calm your tits and fuck off.
Yeah, no.
I can tolerate someone who doesn't like milk in their tea.
I cannot tolerate someone who wants to wipe out every Muslim in the world.
Nor, do I believe, is that something I should have to tolerate.
Nor, do I believe, is that something any Muslim should have to.
And if you believe it is, then you are an idiot.
Someone who rides your bumper because you're not driving fast enough for them is an asshole.
Someone who doesn't wear headphones while listening to their music on public transit is an asshole.
Someone who wants to supports enacting policies banning the existence of certain groups of people is a bigot.
Tolerance is nonsensical bullcrap whose only purpose is mental masturbation.
There are things I like and there are things I don't like, deal with it. Can't deal with it? Maybe don't ask me anything and I won't give you answers that might hurt you.
The only thing that matters is basic human decency. Also I can't match everyone's values, me being truthful matters more to me than your feelings do and I won't lie that I like X when I hate X. The common decency comes in like this - I won't tell you I hate X if you didn't ask. This is important in public jobs like medical care, I guess.
If anything, the tolerance-pushing crowd is most intolerant one. You apparently MUST like X even if you hate X and if you hate X you in fact are wrong, which is retarded. I will like and hate whatever I want, fuck you. Streisand effect is also at play. There possibly exist things I absolutely hate but I'm not aware of and it's not like I go outside looking for people to harrass for everything they do in their life.
Edit: When I made this comment, his only said
Tolerance is nonsensical bullcrap whose only purpose is mental masturbation.
There are things I like and there are things I don't like, deal with it. Can't deal with it? Maybe don't ask me anything and I won't give you answers that might hurt you.
He put the rest there to try to make it less shitty
End edit
You sound like someone who doesn't understand the mutual benefit of society in general.
Like sure, have your intolerance. Tell people exactly how you feel without a filter and then tell them to fuck off right after. No one is making you participate in the social contract. The point is that it's a two way street, and you're never going to be the guy receiving the benefit of the doubt.
Just don't be surprised when the only people who want your company are other intolerant assholes like you.
Also, you sound like you can't tolerate my opinion which is different than yours. Pull your head out of your ass and read definition of tolerance again, this world isn't black and white, it's gray and black, but you seem to believe yourself the white one, which is pure evil because anything less than white is not white, but gray, meaning you cannot tolerate anyone who isn't stuck up self righteous asshole like yourself.
I'm not obliged to kiss your ass and the more you will try to force me the less I will want to. I don't get paid to filter my thoughts. In fact I don't get paid to tell my thoughts to you at all, and I don't particularly enjoy doing things for free so majority of my thoughts go unsaid, if thats not enough for you, feel free to pay me and I will say whatever you want to hear.
You obviously have the right to like or dislike whatever suits you. But tolerance is a requirement for society to function. Our likes and dislikes come from individual perspective, and no one individual can see the whole picture. Tolerance is a way of accounting for that on an individual level by broadening the bounds of what we deem acceptable by some amount, which allows us to cooperate in a broader, complex society. Generally all this means is lending people the benefit of the doubt if they're not actively harming someone.
It's hard to know what exactly pisses you off about this, because you haven't mentioned specifics about what controversial opinions you have, only that you have a right to have them. And fair's fair, some people would take some opinions away from you on social media platforms, or enact harsh penalties for holding hateful beliefs, and I am not really down with that. I'm optimistic about people and do my best to come at these things with respect, and believe in people's ability to learn and grow. I'm wrong and learn things all the time, it's a good thing!
But man, I gotta say that grace is difficult to offer sometimes. I'm trans, and you'd be surprised how quickly "basic human decency" fades as soon as that comes up sometimes. One example of too fucking many: when I came out, my folks disowned me on the spot. They framed much of it in more or less the same rhetoric you use here - personal truth > your feelings, don't bring it up if you don't want my opinion, I can't match other people's values, "tolerant" people are actually the intolerant ones, etc. Between the accusations of autogynephilia and furious bloviating about the sanctity of their opinions, there was no room to just honestly talk - and so therefore, nobody learned anything.
This line of thinking shuts down opposition by dominating the discussion with your opinions and feelings and crying foul when people feel the need to engage you about it. Unfortunately, this presents a brick wall that not only seals yourself from critique, but also seals yourself from having your views challenged and learning more about the world. It's good for no one and only serves to weaken the social fabric of society.
tolerance is a requirement for society to function
No it isn't. Watch this. I stopped reading there because I'm indifferent to anything you have to say about it. And while that may annoy you now, eventually you will realize that it doesn't affect you negatively whatsoever, this is how entire world works right now, you're practically unaware of things happening outside your own street right now, and it works just fine.
Everyone lives in their own small bubble, some people have only their family and their job. Some have that just more friends... But in the end most people pass by eachother without any reaction between one another whatsoever. Everyone has their own problems to deal with and frankly they are busy dealing with them and not caring about others. People who have no problems of their own can go and try pester others about theirs are very fortunate I guess, but that's neither normal nor a thing that should be pushed onto everyone.
Hey buddy. I just came back here for a second to provide you with a little light reading. You're in this post accusing the "tolerant" of being intolerant towards you, who are intolerant, like it makes them hypocrites.
I just want you to know that this post is explicitly about the paradox of intolerance which states that within society, tolerant people have to specifically be intolerant towards the intolerant, or risk them taking over.
All of the raving you're doing about tolerant people being intolerant of you, and how that makes them hypocrites, is really only demonstrating that you don't understand the concept at all.
You're just mad at a buzz word that you think is synonymous with woke culture, and not the philosophical concept independent of politics that has been talked about for thousands of years.
Feel free to keep being an asshole, but understand that tolerant people calling you out for that aren't being intolerant, they are just calling out intolerance, which is required in a tolerant society. That's pretty much the point.
Just thought you should know on the off chance you might actually get it.
