Someone else being a twat won’t make me violate my principles. I’m not good to others because they’re good to me. I’m good to others because they’re an end themselves, not a means to my ends.
And that’s completely your right to do. However, that is not what the tolerance contract covers. It goes beyond what most people would tolerate normally. Also, people cannot both break the social contract, and then insist you hold up the other end.
By example, I’ve previously had long debates over nazi Germany and Hitler’s economic recovery. I would even tolerate Nazis, if they followed the social contract from their side. Unfortunately, the various Nazis groups regularly break that contract. They then try and hide behind it, when others take offence.
Conversely, I also disagree with the “tankies”. They tend not to break the social contract however. This gives them the right to reasonable tolerance of them, and their views. They respect others, despite disagreeing with them. They, in turn, gain a level of respect in discussions.
Don’t get me wrong, I am tolerant of a lot, from purely moralistic reasoning. The social contract is a larger entity however. It formalises what many of us feel. It also shows us where the lines are, beyond which people are abusing our tolerance. It’s the larger social version of our internal morals.
I don’t find social contract arguments all that convincing, but we can just pretend my social contract is “no violence or you get fucked” and ignore that. Tankies are way easier to talk to than Nazis, though I don’t really find myself talking to nazis often - just run of the mill bigots. Anyone with consistent standards or ethics is fairly easy to talk to, even if we disagree.
In my personal life I tend to take on more than half of the social costs in some friendships and I probably do the same when arguing with certain types of people. I’m more tolerant than I strictly need to be, but I feel like treating people like that is necessary for me.
The social contract concept is over-used by people who try to make it cover too much. It becomes a one-sided contract of adhesion which you’re assumed to have agreed to simply by existing. This, however, is simple reciprocation—it’s more like a truce than a contract. It would be unreasonable to expect tolerance from others while refusing to grant the same tolerance to them.
Of course there is no obligation to be intolerant just because the other person is; you are free to make a better choice.
If you are good to nazi’s because they are good to you, regardless of what they do to others, Then your principles, and you as a person, are shit, and you should be treated as nothing but an infiltrator for their cause, because that is what you are.
It’s not nearly that childish. I was talking about treating non-violent people well and you jumped straight to Hitler. Can we acknowledge there’s a pretty big difference there?
Despite being against the death penalty I still feel robust self defense is essential. If someone is attacking you, being good to them is applying the appropriate level of force and not going out of your way to harm them extra for funsies. Even in the rare situation I’m fine with people being deleted, it should be that mundane. No torture. No pain. No consideration for what they’ve done. It’s a practical necessity.
Surely your principles include responding to violence, even if they aren’t violent proactively. There must be situations where ‘being good to others’ means defending them against harm.
Undoubtedly, physical harm.
Presumably, reputational harm. If some fraud tries ruining a stranger’s life by lying to their friends, family, and associates, there are legal consequences for that, and state actions can prevent future attacks.
So what about threats of physical harm? Do they never count as indefensible damage? Can you say, with a straight face, they have no negative impact on their target? Some verbal abuse is different from being struck because bruises on the outside will heal.
We’re not talking about silencing violent bigots because they’re “being twats.” Their actions endanger other people. And you.
Yeah, very robust self defense is 100% in my ethics. I’m not a pacifist.
On the fraud/defamation I kind of think we should develop ways to prevent harm socially. I consider trade/society a form of technology we’re constantly developing. It’s been taken over by government to enrich themselves and their rich buddies instead of serving as tech to improve life for everyone.
If we’re using the current US definition of threat I’m fine considering that aggression in most cases. Imminent threat. Ability to pull it off. A lot of things have negative impacts that I don’t consider aggression.
I’m fine being in danger. It’s kind of weird, but arguing against racism or for trans rights gets me much less push back than arguing for abolishing the death penalty or legalizing all drugs. There are huge pieces of shit out there that I wouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to, but there are also a lot of people with little to no knowledge of some of this shit. Or people that have some silly, ignorant ideas and no experience to help show them they’re being a dumbass.
Someone else being a twat won’t make me violate my principles. I’m not good to others because they’re good to me. I’m good to others because they’re an end themselves, not a means to my ends.
And that’s completely your right to do. However, that is not what the tolerance contract covers. It goes beyond what most people would tolerate normally. Also, people cannot both break the social contract, and then insist you hold up the other end.
By example, I’ve previously had long debates over nazi Germany and Hitler’s economic recovery. I would even tolerate Nazis, if they followed the social contract from their side. Unfortunately, the various Nazis groups regularly break that contract. They then try and hide behind it, when others take offence.
Conversely, I also disagree with the “tankies”. They tend not to break the social contract however. This gives them the right to reasonable tolerance of them, and their views. They respect others, despite disagreeing with them. They, in turn, gain a level of respect in discussions.
Don’t get me wrong, I am tolerant of a lot, from purely moralistic reasoning. The social contract is a larger entity however. It formalises what many of us feel. It also shows us where the lines are, beyond which people are abusing our tolerance. It’s the larger social version of our internal morals.
I don’t find social contract arguments all that convincing, but we can just pretend my social contract is “no violence or you get fucked” and ignore that. Tankies are way easier to talk to than Nazis, though I don’t really find myself talking to nazis often - just run of the mill bigots. Anyone with consistent standards or ethics is fairly easy to talk to, even if we disagree.
In my personal life I tend to take on more than half of the social costs in some friendships and I probably do the same when arguing with certain types of people. I’m more tolerant than I strictly need to be, but I feel like treating people like that is necessary for me.
The social contract concept is over-used by people who try to make it cover too much. It becomes a one-sided contract of adhesion which you’re assumed to have agreed to simply by existing. This, however, is simple reciprocation—it’s more like a truce than a contract. It would be unreasonable to expect tolerance from others while refusing to grant the same tolerance to them.
Of course there is no obligation to be intolerant just because the other person is; you are free to make a better choice.
If you are good to nazi’s because they are good to you, regardless of what they do to others, Then your principles, and you as a person, are shit, and you should be treated as nothing but an infiltrator for their cause, because that is what you are.
I’m good to everyone because they’re humans. Even pieces of shit.
So you’d be kind and nice to Hitler?
I’ve actually answered this before. While you guys are arguing over who gets to peel his dick like a banana I’d slit his throat.
That doesn’t sound like being good to him.
It’s better than being tortured forever.
How does this square with your belief of being good to everyone?
There’s clearly a level which we agree is unacceptable.
It’s not nearly that childish. I was talking about treating non-violent people well and you jumped straight to Hitler. Can we acknowledge there’s a pretty big difference there?
Despite being against the death penalty I still feel robust self defense is essential. If someone is attacking you, being good to them is applying the appropriate level of force and not going out of your way to harm them extra for funsies. Even in the rare situation I’m fine with people being deleted, it should be that mundane. No torture. No pain. No consideration for what they’ve done. It’s a practical necessity.
Whatever you say, Nazi. Enjoy your contemporaries.
And enjoy your day.
Surely your principles include responding to violence, even if they aren’t violent proactively. There must be situations where ‘being good to others’ means defending them against harm.
Undoubtedly, physical harm.
Presumably, reputational harm. If some fraud tries ruining a stranger’s life by lying to their friends, family, and associates, there are legal consequences for that, and state actions can prevent future attacks.
So what about threats of physical harm? Do they never count as indefensible damage? Can you say, with a straight face, they have no negative impact on their target? Some verbal abuse is different from being struck because bruises on the outside will heal.
We’re not talking about silencing violent bigots because they’re “being twats.” Their actions endanger other people. And you.
Yeah, very robust self defense is 100% in my ethics. I’m not a pacifist.
On the fraud/defamation I kind of think we should develop ways to prevent harm socially. I consider trade/society a form of technology we’re constantly developing. It’s been taken over by government to enrich themselves and their rich buddies instead of serving as tech to improve life for everyone.
If we’re using the current US definition of threat I’m fine considering that aggression in most cases. Imminent threat. Ability to pull it off. A lot of things have negative impacts that I don’t consider aggression.
I’m fine being in danger. It’s kind of weird, but arguing against racism or for trans rights gets me much less push back than arguing for abolishing the death penalty or legalizing all drugs. There are huge pieces of shit out there that I wouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to, but there are also a lot of people with little to no knowledge of some of this shit. Or people that have some silly, ignorant ideas and no experience to help show them they’re being a dumbass.