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.
Why did she apologize for agreeing?
She could be Canadian
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?”
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
So then those that tolerate the intolerance are also excluded from the contract, right?
Edit: this is a genuine question.
If 9 people are dining at a table with 1 Nazi, how many Nazis are sitting at the table?
- Unless they poisoned the Nazi’s food and are just waiting to see the waterworks.
Ten,
Unless they poisoned the Nazi’s food and are just waiting to see the waterworks.
Then 1
If you have nine apples and one banana, how many bananas do you have?
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.
For #2, if you aren’t involved in the act, but don’t consent to witnessing it, then aren’t you just being intolerant?
We just have to draw the line somewhere.
So, you’re intolerant of people who draw the line in a different place from you?
If they have consent from everybody in that place, sure
Who gets to weigh in? How public does the sex have to be? How violent? Do they have to actually be in the public place, or can it be someone who might think of going to that public place?
Did everyone involved give their informed consent with valid alternatives? Then yeah, go right ahead!
So, that’s the kind of world you want to live in?
Having the option is not being forced. Just because some people like spicy food doesn’t mean everyone is forced to eat it.
But everyone is required to tolerate people who want to have sex with children, people who want to have sex in public, people who want to eat human meat, etc. You couldn’t have laws against those things because that would be intolerant.
It’s reasonable to conclude that some people cannot consent to some things, particularly things they don’t understand. Sex with children, animals, and adults under some kinds of intoxication fall into this category.
Sex in public can work, if that public consents. Indeed there are some publics that do consent, usually small communities, but it does happen.
Consumption of human flesh is theoretically A-OK, it’s the obtaining of that flesh that is difficult. The dealing of human material outside of controlled channels can lead to the killing of people for money or power, which is why it’s illegal to buy or sell organs for transplants or research. With stakes this high, any compensation can be twisted into coercion. This, plus the risk of bioaccumulation and parasites, has led the consumption of human flesh to be a taboo, although exceptions do get made in extreme circumstances. As such, if the origin of such flesh can be confirmed to be uncoerced and not used for long-term sustenence, and this can be rigorously enforced, then I have no problem with it.
The allowing of things which may lead to disallowed things does depend on the ability of a community to understand the risks and adapt to reduce them. For example, Canada recently began practicing medically assisted dying for those who choose it, yet some doctors have already been criticised for pushing it unprompted instead of recommending treatment. I shudder to think what could happen if insurance companies could legally consider it a valid alternative.
The issue here is that some things can create an intolerance for some rights, without violating those rights to begin with. Where the line is drawn should depend on how strictly the line can be enforced, so while historically many lines were drawn very broadly, we have stronger social technology now, and we can free up areas near those lines. Should we spend the effort to have those thinner lines is another question, and usually depends on how useful that area is; for example stem cell testing could teach us a lot, but eating human flesh is very inefficient and possibly dangerous long-term.
If something causes intolerance, then we certainly should create laws against that intolerance. It’s usually simple to make the laws against the thing itself, but laws could be made that allow more things without allowing the intolerance. It can be a complicated matter, but one worth pursuing, otherwise everything would eventually end up outlawed.
some people cannot consent to some things, particularly things they don’t understand
But, where do you draw the line? Historically the age of consent has changed a lot. Maybe it should be that nobody under 30 can consent because their minds are still developing.
Sex in public can work, if that public consents
How do you determine if the public consents? What if some of the public consents and other public doesn’t?
Consumption of human flesh is theoretically A-OK,
According to whom?
If something causes intolerance, then we certainly should create laws against that intolerance
The point is, it’s all going to come down to lines a community decides based on a variety of things from religious influence, to culture, to infectious diseases, to healthcare systems, to population density, to all kinds of influences. It will be absolutely fine to be intolerant of someone who crosses one of those lines, because the community has decided that that’s where the lines are. On the other hand, it won’t be fine to be intolerant of someone who crosses what is a line for another society.
deleted by creator
The only way to be anti-fascist is to be fascist against fascists you don’t like.
That’s the irony of these things, including tolerance, it clearly doesn’t work, and that’s why in 2023 we still have around 200 countries and each of us still wants to live on their own property and not with a massive group of people.
I don’t have to tolerate anyone outside my property, and this has been proven to work for entire human history. Even countries that officially don’t like eachother and spam propaganda to their own citizens keep trading weapons and other things, so there’s 0 benefit in kissing anyone’s ass except to look better in front of others.
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
Try being tolerant for once and see how long you last.
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?
My very first post started off with the fact that I won’t try to be nice to anyone, so I’m now unironically concerned for your mental health.
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”.
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.
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.
Absolutely relevant for religion and especially muslims.
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.
Someone who comes to a post to argue against tolerance as a concept, who then turns around and accuses other people of not liking opinions that aren’t theirs (read:definition of tolerance), is rather ironic. And a little hypocritical.
Again, you’re not exactly coming off as qualified to decide what tolerance is. Especially considering your first words are the personification of the paragraph that you just accused of me.
Anyway, I just came back to point out the irony. Toodles
It isn’t hipocritical, you claim to be tolerant, I’m pointing out you aren’t. You’re a piece of shit as a person and I’m glad I won’t see you anywhere but on internet.
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.
Very cute of you, but I’ve got bigger worries than whether or not internet strangers care about my opinion. Enjoy your bubble.
Did you just… Agree with me? But somehow were unable to realize it?
Indifference won.
Naw, it’s just the healthiest way I’ve found to approach people online. Lead with earnestness and a desire to understand, don’t sweat it when people shut you out - helps with finding the good folks in a hostile world. If you’re so truly indifferent, why respond in the first place?
