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.

    • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thank you for writing a thoughtful response! My understanding of the social contract is that it’s an unwritten agreement that if you want to get the benefits of living in a society (being able to purchase food and shelter rather than having to live in the wild and make/get your own) you have to abide by its rules. Where the Paradox of Tolerance comes in is that being intolerant (in how you treat other people specifically) is disruptive to society, which breaks the social contract. There may or may not be actual laws broken when doing so, but you should expect to be shown the door (also links nicely with “freeze peach” arguments).

                • samus12345@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, since the “social contract” is a concept, it will vary depending on what society or even part of society you’re in. The Paradox of Tolerance specifically refers to societies that value tolerance of others - there’s no paradox in a society that’s just fine with being intolerant. When it comes to “is it okay to punch Nazis?”, I’m of the belief that it’s highly dependent on the situation. If you’re meaning to just express displeasure in their ideology, the better way to do that is to collectively “show them the door,” make sure they know that their ideas aren’t welcome without resorting to violence. But actively oppose them and don’t simply ignore them, because they will use any power given to them to suppress others. If the Nazis are violating your rights, then, yes, it’s okay to punch them because they’ve taken a step over the line at that point.

                  “no paradox here, if you punch nazis, you are a nazi, because it breaks the social contract”

                  I’m pretty sure this is the opposite of what they meant because as I said, the Paradox of Tolerance only apples to tolerant societies, which the Nazis are demonstrably not a part of. And of course, breaking the social contract doesn’t necessarily make you a Nazi. Could you break the social contract in a tolerant society by punching a Nazi? Yes, if you instigated violence without sufficient reason.

            • dnick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Seems like your biggest hang up is the word ‘contract’, which you have assigned a lot of concrete properties to. Would it be easier to understand if they used the word agreement, and described it in softer terms like the general agreement everyone in the world has that punching someone in the face is not an acceptable for of greeting? I mean, no one has said that, and you haven’t personally gone up to everyone and stated this and shook hands on it, but it’s still something everyone agrees on.

              The social ‘contract’ is like that, it just uses an unnecessarily official sounding term in it, but ultimately is just the understanding that some concessions have to be made to deal with other humans. The terms of the contract are really to vague to ‘sign’, and when people start referring to more specific terms things can go of the rails pretty quickly, but there is still an implicit agreement. It’s like living in an apartment where you didn’t sign the lease…sure you’re not legally bound by the terms in the same way that someone who did sign the lease is, but your still bound by them in some ways simply by living in the apartment. In the same way, continuing to live in society is the way the ‘contract’ gets signed.

        • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.