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.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • tetrachromacy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

    • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.