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.
I highly doubt you will be safer. If people knew they could do anything to you without any consequences it wont take long for people to rob and kill you. Because why not.
Because it’s not like there’s not a cost, or an inherent danger in attacking someone of being…idk… Attached back? If you watch animal attacks you’ll notice deer or bear can be scared of by a human with a stick and loud voice, not because the animal is in any disadvantage, but bc of the uncertainty of human capabilities and the rising certainty of dying from severity of injury,(bleeding out, predation, infection) makes the cost not worth it.
And you know, most people simply aren’t like that. We are pro-social. Post-apoc there is nothing that has more value than another person. No gun, no tool, no vehicle. Another person expands capabilities and capacities across the board, as well as helping keep your sanity. So, sorry, I’m not afraid of people. I already rape and murder exactly as much now as I want to, and that amount is zero.
Those that say without religion blah blah blah fucking terrifying me and yet I’m glad their chosen book keeps their inner demons at bay.
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.
How would you get those batteries or power those armed sentries without being a part of society?
They require quite a bit of specialization to build and maintain.
Being an outlaw doesn’t mean you don’t participate or become a recluse. It means you are outside the protection of the law, that’s it. Was there some confusion that I missed here?
Honestly let me flip the whole thing back at y’all,
What’s the law (the people that make it up) done for you that shows that it should continue being trusted with that power? The worst injustice done to me in my entire life, by leaps and bounds, was done to me consciously by a fucking evil cop. If he was on fire I’d wait until his lips and eyelids burnt off before pissing on him just so he could survive and feel that pain everyday, and I’d live completely guilt free knowing that still doesn’t add up to it.
Why, in today’s world, would someone denying the ‘offer’ even be seen as controversial and have the onnus turned on them and not the people who made the environment hostile in the first place? Fucking bootlickers. I don’t recall me breaking the public trust, yet I see it in the newspaper on the fucking daily. Every 4 hours a cop kills someone in America, y’all think throwing more money at that’s gonna fix it? Has that worked for ANY system under capitalism?
In Seattle there’s over 50 cops last year that made over $250k. Our national generals make less than that. Shit, our state senators make $60k/yr. I don’t see cops solving crime, do you? You’d be lucky if they even show up when you call. Fuck the police.
So, becoming an outlaw would change nothing for the better. Quite contrary actually. Police could go even worse on you without any consequences but now you would also have to worry about everyone else being able to fuck you over with zero consequences for them.
And yes, being an outlaw would mean you don’t participate. Why would society grant you benefits like providing service that cost a lot of money (e.g. infrastructure) while you sit back and say “fuck you, give me your shit”
Removed by mod
Actually, society treats refugees quite harshly in almost any country. It’s really only right wing propaganda that pushes the concept that any country just accepts refugees with open arms while they pillage a new country.
Guess we know where you get your information from
Removed by mod
So the benefits of society are inextricable linked with accepting their protection racket? Just being clear here, this isn’t you know, textbook extortion? If I criticize capitalism, does that mean I’m criticizing America as a whole or is there more to America and life inside it than the economic laws we passed? One can exist without the other…we see capitalism in other countries… Does that mean other countries are America…? Or maybe that that’s a stupid conflagration. Stupidly common too.
There’s nothing stopping police from actively ruining and derailing your entire life now. They’ll do it just for the lolz. It’s overpaid institutionalized malice granted immunity. And what do they do with this honor? Wanton murder and subjugation and have become the largest mob stealing the most from the citizens that the countries ever seen or known.
Ask me how I know
I’d happily pay the estimated $75 per person a year for the military. Since that’s half the congressional budget I’ll just attach the other $75 in a blank check. In fact in my preferred world we’d be able to sign off or on and single line item of the budget individually. But that works be government by persuasion not coercion.
And we should have to go thru the motions of paying our own taxes. If you believe in personal property, y’know, just straight up ownership, then no one, and I mean no one, has the right to your money unless it’s thru you. Maybe it’s me. Maybe I simply think that respectful society should act respectfully.
And yes, thank you for such concerns but I really do feel much safer taking my own security into my own hands, utilizing and practicing my own agency, probably because it’s the only security any of us actually have, or will likely know. The police aren’t our protectors. Ask the kids in Uvalde. The police protect private property of those that donate to them and abuse the application of the law to such a degree that respecting it doesn’t even REGISTER in the brain. No one respects the law. Some FEAR the law, but that is not respect. More so, the law is openly flaunted on national TV by corporations and by politicians. A fine not as big as the illicit gains? Cost of business, rinse, repeat. As much freedom as you can afford, just pad every pocket on the way. Corruption=the American way.
You want to be rich? Mimic their behavior. Lovely society we live in, huh? And who would’ve thought, that breaking the public trust, with no accountability, would just pave the way for Blade Runner. There’s your psychotic motherfuckers that need religion to not rape. Punch up, fools, before you cant anymore. Look to this post. THEY BROKE THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, my allegiance to their, to ANY fucking cause isn’t unconditional. Life itself, IS CONDITIONAL.
Huh, I didn’t know Ted Kaczynski is on Lemmy
Well, with the difference that Kaczynski wasn’t a moron even though he has some weird ideas
In Seattle there’s over 50 cops last year that made over $250k.
That can’t be true, right? You’re probably talking about senior management, and not the ‘cop on the beat’, yes?
Or, you know, you could just shower and learn to get along with people.
I’m drawing the line at showering. If society doesn’t want me at my stankiest it does not deserve me clean.
Removed by mod
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.
I have nothing but respect for teachers that actually want to help kids learn and grow, and it sucks really bad for them but it needs to be harder to become qualified to teach, and also it needs to be an extremely well paid profession. Like 120k minimum
Agreed, but the words you’re looking for are “more rigorous,” not “harder.” Becoming a teacher is already relatively hard, unless you’re willing to accept lifelong debt, take tons of meaningless tests, pay for your own trainings, and learn how to trade your ambitions for potentially oppressive discipline.
Removed by mod
Stop it! Get out of my head! I’ve had this exact conversation with many of my peers. I’ve told a number of very good teachers that I’ll never hang out with them in a private setting because the fact that they choose to do what they do for what they’re paid shows that they’re mentally unstable.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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.
deleted by creator
For real… It’s always astounded me in the first place. I’ve only ever looked at it like a social contract. Quebec here in Canada has had a few times in the past where they’ve voted to leave the country. When asked about all the services that the Canadian government provides and who would provide them now, a huge amount of people repeatedly blanked. For some reason no one ever thought that “If I’m not part of the group, I don’t get the benefits of the group.”
Apparently that shit applies to idiots as well. “I hate fascists! Fuck them! They’re horrible people! They must be treated the same as us and be kind to them! Tolerate their beliefs even though those beliefs are actively calling for the death and extermination of entire groups of people!”
There isn’t enough off on this planet for them to fuck.
Removed by mod
Translation:
I’m an intolerant asshole and I don’t like tolerance because then I might not get to be intolerant
Again, nobody is making you abide the social contract. You’re mad about an invented problem
Removed by mod
You sound like someone who tried to be nice to someone once and swore it off entirely when they weren’t nice back.
According to your own logic, I can do exactly as I want and you can fuck off. So what’s the point in being here arguing with people? Like, do you think you’re going to change some minds? Or are you just here to insist that people listen to you about your right to not have to listen to them?
Removed by mod
My very first post started off with the fact that I won’t try to be nice to anyone
I’ve got another little bit of irony for you. The guy that said this is trying to call someone out for calling him an asshole like it’s attacking his character and not directly commenting on this thing where he said he was going to be an asshole. Funny right?
Well now, that’s not consistent at all. That position might actually reflect a little tolerance and empathy. But I thought you said you don’t do those things?
Or is it, like I originally pointed out, that you don’t actually understand the concept of tolerance, and what you’re fighting against is just the buzz word that you’ve learned?
Removed by mod
Why did she apologize for agreeing?
Some kind of advanced rhetorical technique, probably.
She could be Canadian
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 @masquenox@lemmy.ml said is exactly what I would expect a fascist would.
Where I’d say the term “tolerance” matters is that some people will take negative actions against others in their lifetime - the question is how much leeway you give them on it.
Say a guy you’ve never met steps into a shop you own, and immediately tells you to “Back the hell off, dipshit.” Ostensibly, he’s broken the rule of respect, and should receive none - but tolerance would suggest that if, a minute later, he says to you “…Look, I’m sorry for yelling. Everyone I’ve met today has treated me terribly and I lashed out.” then the social contract is preserved.
Tolerance acknowledges people are not perfect, and will make mistakes. The paradox of tolerance helps us recognize when they’re not mistakes.
That definition of tolerance isn’t the one that’s being used in this thread and I don’t think it’s particularly useful to substitute it into a phrase it’s not intended in
No. I didn’t.
What do you see as the difference between tolerance and mutual respect?
I differ between respect for people as human beings and respect (tolerance, if you will) for their ideas and actions
Sure, it’s possible to respect someone at a baseline human level while also not agreeing with their actions. That doesn’t encompass tolerance as I understand it, so let me run these by ya:
If you don’t respect someone’s ideas or actions, what would you intervene and prevent them from doing, if anything? What decisions would you trust them to make for themselves? How much effort would you put into empathizing with them?
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.
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.
Responding in proportion by harming someone in self defense would be crossing the standard of not harming others, but is acceptable.
And if you go further than is needed you would void your own social contract status.
He’s talking about apples and you’re talking about apple pie. You kind of asserted a lot of extra to what entails self defense.
He and about everyone in this thread including the originator are talking shit about things they don’t even slightly understand and then trying to scramble to justify.
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.
This just isn’t correct your social contract didn’t magically change. You aren’t excused from it by someone’s actions. It is rooted in who you are not who they are. It can be described in this case by a sentence. Just because a clause doesn’t apply to a particular situation doesn’t mean the fuckin rule changed.
Don’t cause people to come to harm by action or inaction wherein your actions are themselves justifiable to reasonable people while protecting yourself by doing the least harm possible while preserving your justifiable interests. We end up needing a lot more words to describe what reasonable is because people are stupid assholes but it is what it is.
You apply the same rule to someone trying to attack you as someone making change at the fucking grocery store. The attacker is part of the same social contract even if you end up bloodying the one person and thanking the other.
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!!
deleted by creator
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.
If someone steals my bike I would totally steal it back, and depending on where you live they execute murderers. I don’t think it needs to be a special case.
Neither of your counter examples works. ‘Stealing’ your bike back isn’t stealing; execution isn’t murder, even if you agree with it.
The only difference between them is society is ok with one and dislikes the other. That’s the whole point. If “stealing” your own bike isn’t stealing, then rejecting the intolerant isn’t intolerance.
No, stealing your own bike just is not stealing. It’s yours. By definition, you cannot steal something that belongs to you.
That’s what I said. You are trying to be confusing, but only confusing yourself.
No, the equivalent to your suggestion would be to argue that, by stealing, you waive your own property rights. Manifestly, this is not the case.
I’d be happy to continue this conversation with you if you can do so politely.
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.
I don’t believe I have those confused but it seems to me you did. Morality is the concept of right and wrong along with a kind of focus about a person’s " goodness" or “badness” of character that underlies their behavior. Law is at some level meant to enforce the spirit of this by codifying it into a structure of deterrent and reciprocation that a society (or the powerful within society) agree is fair. Laws however are made by controlling interests which themselves may not be paragons and may weild the law in ways that quite frankly are immoral to benefit certain segments of society. Laws are just tools and “what exactly is the law” is it’s own rabbit hole.
The social contract is the nebulous bit in between. Because law at some level requires some level of enforcement it’s kind of patchy in its application. The social contract is the sort of web of what is considered moral and what is acceptable to deter or reciprocate immoral behaviour on an interpersonal level.
But the question of “why is it okay to be nasty to bigots” is a social contract question. “Why don’t we steal from theives or murder murderers” is more of a culture and law question. If you go back 200 years law officials killed people for stealing things because deterrent was over favored over something more like our modern concept of proportional punishment. People generally don’t have to concern themselves with social contract questions when they have an authority to call on to do the punishment for them provided they ageee authority’s punishment is considered fair.
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.
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?
Yeah, I like dags.
Maybe uncle can taxidermy them and cherish their memory forever alive. Even the one named Theseus, or was it the name of the uncle?
“Yeah, this was my uncle’s dog, but we’ve cut off and replaced so many parts on it that it’s now my uncle’s end table.”
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.
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.
There is
there isn’t, that’s why it’s a paradox.
It isn’t a paradox. The reference is a misnomer.
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.
For example, here is an article disputing it. Just one example of many.
Which all do recognize some general upper limit, even if the variance can dip into the single digits or approach the high triples. The point being that there is a functional upper bound, and certainly not one so high that it can accommodate a fully high school’s worth of students much less a nation’s worth of citizens.
No, I don’t think reducing the tolerance paradox to biological limits is productive or instructive.
Its useful from a practical perspective, as it demonstrates a real upper limit on the individual. For the same reason that estimated life expectancy, standard walking speeds, and normal sleep patterns shape our basic expectations of human behavior and comfort, an understanding of social maximal empathy limits can help us engineer social structures efficiently.
You wouldn’t expect a normal human to sprint at the speed of freeway traffic. Why would you expect a normal human to empathize with a constituent group of a million people?
We see this kind of rhetoric in all kinds of extremism
We don’t just see it in extremist ideologies. We see it in every ideology. Milquetoast moderates like George Bush and Bill Clinton had the same fundamental impulses when they governed the US as Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. Only their policies differed. Policies that were inevitably most favorable to very particular constituencies. This was not a difference in their scale of empathy.
Nativism and alienation will always be a problem for groups of humans at the scale of thousands. And so social and political structures need to be resized to accommodate that upper bound. Otherwise, tolerance just becomes double-speak, a term you toss about when you’re angry at some out-group for failing to conform to the biases of your in-group.
This is true for stupid, bad faith definitions of “tolerant society” and “totally tolerant”.
It’s something shitheads bring up when people aren’t putting up with their shittiness.
-
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?
Is true.
But who/what defines where the boundry is between acceptable and not acceptable?
Do you actively encourage harm to others minding their own fucking business.
So thats your definition. Ok.
Define harm.
Physical? Mental? Financial? Environmental?
All of the above.
Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You’re out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn’t address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Diffuse sanctions carried out by the community. And if the community all falls in agreement with such lunacy, you have much bigger problems than how you handle tolerance.
To exapand on the original who: all of us. We are all executors of the social contract.
Yes
You all are right now. I bet a lot of Nazis are minding their own business, just being a racist in a corner somewhere. Maybe hiding from the leftists who think they have the balls to punch somebody.
I bet a lot of Nazis are minding their own business, just being a racist in a corner somewhere. Maybe hiding from the leftists who think they have the balls to punch somebody.
Sounds like it’s working then =)
But you’re being intolerant of someone doing nothing in a corner. So you’re violating the social contract, so you should be excluded.
But you’re being intolerant of someone doing nothing in a corner. So you’re violating the social contract, so you should be excluded.
Except no, that’s not true.
If the Nazi is keeping their abhorrent views to themselves in the corner, because they’re scared to voice them for fear of the repercussions, then I wouldn’t even know, now would I? The repercussions worked.
Come on bud, it’s your own hypothetical, try to keep it straight.
Ok ‘Bud’. The fact that there are repercussions is what is being discussed. The Nazis intentions aren’t relevant. Maybe he is in the corner to plan the 23rd Reich. But if you’re out to harm someone just for sitting in a corner minding their own business, that is a violation of the contract outlined above.
… I think you’re mistaking what I’m saying, or hallucinating something I haven’t said.
Nowhere have I said I’m out to harm someone minding their own business. In fact, I’ve said basically the opposite.
The fact that they are sitting in the corner keeping their abhorrent beliefs to themselves is a good thing. Because the consequences for trying to act on them or spread them are working.
In other words… As long as they do keep that to themselves, then there are no consequences for them. It’s only if they act on those beliefs or try to spread them, do people act in return.
Racism isn’t an intrinsic, non-visible behavior. Racists act externally to other members of society. They don’t sit in their own corner.
So as long as I keep my Nazi flags in my apartment, I’m A-OK?
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?
Because it always cones down to an entirely individualized arbitrary standard.
No, it doesn’t, and pretending so will not make your case any more convincing.
As neat as the meme is, it just abstracts the problem another level.
A level that still looks very similar to mob rule.
Explain how not accepting hatred and bigotry is “mob rule” and not just “keeping peace”, thanks.
The thoughts and ideas that drive progress rarely start from the middle of society.
True but irrelevant. What is your point, here?
And in times of rising authoritarianism the tendency of the center mob to excise and exclude overreaches and leads to an era of fascism.
“In times of rising authoritarianism”, sure. But waves of democratic protest for popular movements is not rising authoritarianism. It’s rising libertarianism, the exact opposite.
So, rhetorically, what im worried about is how the circle of tolerance always shrinks.
Such as when, and how? When do those pushing for tolerance ever “shrink their circle”? You’re just making this up.
Im worried how some use the line of tolerance as a weapon to control thoughts of others.
No, you’re not. If you really are, then yes, you are stupid.
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?
