You must log in or register to comment.
This is what I’ve always said to people when it comes to things like respect
Respect isn’t earned it’s the baseline. You give everyone a base level of respect as the default and their reaction is what determines your continued level of respect.
It goes way, way deeper.
It’s the tit-for-tat strategy that is applicable in a very wide range of situations. And animals follow it too. It is deeply ingrained in our biology.
-
first time you interact with a new person, you assume they are following the same strategy, so you cooperate.
-
if they don’t, then next time, you don’t either. But if they do, then you both continue cooperating until someone breaks the chain of trust.
-
Once broken, the guilty party must make amends to restart.
-
If broken, but neither party acknowledges guilt, a restart can be tried, but it will always be difficult due to distrust. So it works better if one party takes the blame, makes amends and restarts. (this is called ‘being the bigger person’).
Upvote for mentioning tit-for-tat. There has been a lot of research on the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and as I recall the winning strategy determined by many experiments showed that over time, the ‘nice tit-for-tat’ strategy gets the highest score. It may lose out in an individual interaction, but over time, sticking to it is the best long-term strategy.
However this does mean if one is a grifter and fully expects never to interact with the other (victim) party again… there’s less incentive to use such a strategy.
Indeed.
Which is why most people have an innate distrust and disgust of grifters.
I would even argue that our very deep disgust against grifters is the legitimate base emotion on which xenophobia is built and therefore xenophobia will always be with us and must always be actively unlearned.
(Racism, in contrast, is learned and can be eradicated by stopping it’s spread)
-
Word “respect” means two different things. One of them can only be earned, another can only be given.
What’s more, the part that can only be given is best described by trust. As in, the only way you can truly know if you can trust someone is to trust and find out.
In this context, the respect that is given - a regard for the others - is a baseline trust in a reciprocal valuation. The respect that is earned is the collection of outcomes that feed into others’ trust risk assessment.
I’d argue that dignity is the baseline but that respect is subjective.
Well said! Good reminder for why we punch fascists.
good point, but not a meme
Please post stuff like this in !actualsocialism@lemmy.dbzer0.com from now on
Not giving a shit about other people is a mental illness. Lack of empathy may be taught by several institutions, but it’s still morally wrong and against human nature. Cooperation is how our species survived.
At first, I saw this and thought I really needed my glasses, but once I got them… saw this image is heavily compressed. 🥴
Thanks, edited the post with the higher resolution image
No problem, always glad to help 👍
everyone who voted for Trump broke the social contract of this country
Thank you for demonstrating exactly how this sentiment is so much of a problem.
Every marginalized populace has been accused of being an enemy of society. The paradox of intolerance says it is morally acceptable to oppress the enemies of society. The paradox says that oppressing these enemies is a moral imperative.
The same moral principle that allows you to be intolerant of Trump voters justifies intolerance toward Biden voters, and anyone else that anyone doesn’t like.
The paradox of intolerance was cribbed from Mein Kampf, and is the foundational principle of fascism.
On today’s episode of “the real fascists are the fascists who won’t let me fascist.”
I’m gonna need a source on that, bud.
I gave you the source. Mein Kampf.
Hitler regularly spoke about the “harm” he believed Judaism was causing. He infamously demonstrated his belief that the Jewish mindset was dangerously harmful to society, and used that risk and danger to justify acting against them. His argument was that Judaism was “intolerant” of German culture, and he came to the same conclusion that Popper would come to a little later: it is morally correct to suppress the “intolerant”.
The correct lesson to learn from Popper’s Paradox is the insidiousness of fascism. Intolerance for the “intolerant” is the foundation.
It’s different because the Jews weren’t fascists.
If a philosophical model leads to atrocity when it is adopted by your enemy, that model is irreparably flawed.
The moral lesson from the Intolerance paradox is “you are justified in destroying those who do not agree with you”. That philosophy is identical to and indistinguishable from the personal worldview of every oppressor that has ever existed.
Whether the Jews were actually, objectively fascist or not is irrelevant: the German public believed them to be their enemies, and believed themselves justified in destroying their enemies. Popper’s Paradox does not improve that situation; it worsens it. It gives them a sense of legitimacy for whatever actions they decide to take against their enemy.
No, the moral lesson from the intolerance paradox is “destroy intolerance”.
Bad people always find excuses. Do you believe in feeding the homeless? What if the Nazis fed the homeless Jews Zyklon B, would you still believe in feeding the homeless then, you genocidal freak?
You’re not quite grasping the concept.
The entire point of Popper’s Paradox is to encourage “Good” people to use the exact same excuses as the “Bad”.
The problem with the paradox is that nobody identifies themselves as the bad guy.
You have demonstrated hostility toward me, intolerance of my viewpoint. My philosophy of “tolerance” calls for me to tolerate your speech, up until you actually call for harm against me. Your philosophy of “intolerance for the intolerant” calls for me to suppress you.
Adopting your philosophical model, I should hunt you down and destroy you. Maintaining my own philosophical model, I should endeavor to tolerate your intolerant attitude and behavior.
Shall I maintain my own philosophy? Or shall I adopt yours?
I dunno man, Israel serving some real fashy vibes rn.
I think you meant to say “Trump bad!!!”
The downvotes you have received are ridiculous. Despite the well spoken argument that you have made in good faith, people are just pissed off that you’ve seen the problem in a different way to them and I’d guess that in many cases, just failed to understand what you’re saying.
I think you’re absolutely right. Alienating people politically opposed to you by insulting them, isn’t only a reciprocating problem, but actively counter productive to your cause. I don’t think any republican has switched sides because a democrat has called them a low IQ cult member.
This is some Reddit tier shit. Such a shame.
You’re right, it all depends on who is in power, and what they define to be tolerable and what intolerance is in their view. That’s why it’s our moral obligation to tolerate the intolerant, however counterintuitive that may sound.
There is a line, but that line is where intolerant speech crosses to threats or acts of physical harm, either to person or property.
“If you offend me, I will silence you.”
Vs.
“I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.”
Not a fan of Trump, but there was never a “social contract” in the first place.
if you think that, you are not a citizen… you’re a customer…
I’m a citizen by coercion of the government, not by voluntary means.
A “social contract” cannot be used to justify the existence of an oligarchy of politicians and its actions because they will initiate force against those who do not wish to enter into that contract.
In fact, the so-called “social contract” is not a contract at all because it is unilateral in nature. Voting and taxation don’t necessarily imply consent with how government works, as there is no explicit consent of every citizen.
Such indiscriminate uncritical love of representative democracy is a threat to liberty itself.
you sound like a Russian propagandist… only someone totally defeated by fear thinks that way… you are clearly a slave…
Argumentum ad hominem.
you’re mis-using that term, to try to gain sympathy… another sign of weakness…
Sorry, dude, but your previous comment was a textbook example of ad hominem. Further, the comment I’m replying to is an example of gaslighting and another ad hom.
Focus on the argument, not the person making it.
You’re literally accusing me of “russian propagandist” instead of replying to my personal argument.
The paradox has never been a problem. This is just another way to frame it
It’s like saying ‘you might think this engine is broken since it can’t run on the water that it is filled with, but if you simply remove the water and replace it with petrol suddenly the engine is fixed.’
The post seems to approach the paradox as if it meant to show that tolerance is inherently broken when in reality it just points out the possibility of problematic aspects if incorrectly applied, like in the above where it is obvious the engine itself was never broken. The paradox doesn’t disappear, it simply doesn’t apply to that particular application.
The main idea from OPs post is often ascribed to Yonatan Zunger as some huge revelation, but really this idea has been about for quite some time as its not exactly hard to come up with. For example, K. R. Popper 1945, and E. M. Forster 1922 both wrote about this.
The paradox has never been a problem for you.
Some people find the paradox of tolerance to be unhelpful because it seems like it’s making an excuse for intolerance. And to be fair, the paradox phrasing doesn’t provide hard boundaries - intentionally, I think, since the extent to which a statement is intolerant can vary - and intolerance in response to it should be commensurate. But for people who tend towards black and white thinking, it can be a problematic explanation.
The social contact version is much more clear cut: the metaphor of contract law is binary, and contains the image of the neutral “judge” which is helpful for black and white thinkers. A person either is it is not in breach of contract. It lacks nuance, which is good and bad.
Essentially, the core idea is the same: tolerance is the expected foundation; intolerance is abnormal and not ok. But whichever expression works for you is probably better.
Editing to add: the contract version, with its appeal to the Law and judges etc, is objective, which is helpful; the subjective nature of the paradox means that it can be weaponized - and it is, often. Tho to be fair the people who would weaponize it would probably weaponize either version - as it has been, multiple times in this very thread.
For me? Yeah sure, but that’s irrelevant and not the case of my comment.
What I meant is that the paradox doesn’t mean that the concept of tolerance is toppled by the paradox existing.
But your exploration of the topic is spot-on. This post is an additional way to describe it and it seems to be more approachable to many, so great
Right this is just adding another layer to the same concept.
Whoa, if someone doesn’t abide by a social contract, it doesn’t apply to them? That is legitimately a scary thought. It feels a bit like saying if I break a law, the law doesn’t apply to me; but I would very much like the parts that shield me from abuse and unfair judgement, to still apply…
Also what is the universally accepted subset of human behaviors, viewpoints and identities that we should tolerate? It seems like an arbitrary line, in some ways, and if it’s an arbitrary line, it can be moved to exclude ever more people.
Playing devils advocate here, I don’t have a problem with, say, rejecting fascists and nazis whose viewpoints are destructive toward the kind of world I wish to live in. That’s simply being pragmatic.
If you violate the terms of an agreement you do not get the benefits of the agreement but that does not mean that you cannot be punished.
Laws and social contracts are different things. A social contract is often only enforced by the option of its withdrawal. Another example is covering shifts at work. If a colleague asks you, and you always refuse, you then can’t complain when they refuse, when you ask them. The social contract is “You bail me out, and I’ll bail you out in turn.”
A lot of social contracts are implicit in our cultures. They take the form of “respect” or “courtesy”. In fact, many are good examples of “enlightened self interest altruism”. You do something altruistic, with the understanding that, if needed, others will do the same for you in the future. E.g. I support having a strong income safety net, financed by taxes (including my own). I never plan on relying on it, but support it because I hope something would catch me if I ended up in trouble. (I also support it because I consider it a good thing, but that’s only my internal feelings on the matter)
Adding, and then insisting upon, the existence of a social construct, doesn’t negate the existence of the original paradox.
Of course if we all agree to play by the same rules, those rules make more sense. That’s kinda the point.
The paradox is about what happens if some people refuse to accept those rules. Then it all falls apart.
Right, need to show this to Muslims in this country I live in.
Muslims are the only intolerant people in your society? Is it all Muslims or just the diehard fan boys?
There are several pockets of area where Muslims are not the majority.
I have never heard of violence against minorities in that area, even for Muslims themselves.
Meanwhile Muslims:
-
Prevent people from eating during Ramadhan. They force minorities to fast also.
-
Destroy Churches and other religious buildings.
-
Prevent people from going to Church or Temples etc.
-
Harass Chinese, somehow Chinese are so hated around here. For no fucking reason.
Hint: this is in Southeast Asia.
Indonesia?
-
It is moral to follow the contract, but tolerance itself is not inherently moral. The contract is.
I don’t know why I am so helpless to resist putting energy into things that make me so unhappy, but I am. I will mention an example to explain why I feel this is inconsistent, and then condemn the ideals behind the paradox.
By no means was India under a social contract with the colonialist British Raj. The British Raj was created using forceful means.
India did not gain swaraj by professing violence when the British intimidated them. Nor when they British rode over them on horses. They gained swaraj through non-violent resistance. The successful party tolerated outrageous abuse without violence. And won their social contract.
The Paradox of Tolerance suggests the only means of combating violent intolerance is through the same intolerance.
I cannot agree. This is no different from saying, “A violent dog may only be stopped by a violent dog.” The people who follow such dogma devolve into organizations such as Hamas. Hamas is right to resist their intolerant neighbors. Certainly. Absolutely? Even through violence against civilians?
One sentiment in this thread cut close to this issue, which I will paraphrase. “Anyone who passively supports intolerance is also intolerant.”
Such an ideal supports violence, as each side believes they are justified in causing ever higher counts of casualties, “To remove the intolerant.”
Violence for violence. Hate for hate. There is no end to intolerance, ever. Not through tolerance, not through discourse, not through genocide of the intolerant.
The end of a violent dog is through careful restraint and gentle care, but there will always be violent dogs. Violence is a short term dirty bandage, followed by rot, followed by excision. Only care can help heal a wound.
The paradox is almost right. The end to tolerance is… intolerance.
Forgive me for intruding upon your morning, I wish you a pleasant day.
I’m glad you put the effort in, it’s the only way humanity can improve upon itself.
I agree with what you’ve said and think this graphic agrees with you as well. I don’t believe it implies that violence should be used against the intolerant but rather that action should be taken to remedy intolerance.
However I do see what you mean, as it’s phrasing doesn’t preclude violence either and could be further refined to highlight that point.
deleted by creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU rowan atkison on the paradox of tolerance.
This is delivered in an entertaining way, but it has multiple issues within.
For one, it’s delivered by a “beloved” UK institution of an entertainer, who has power and a podium. Insulting him as he asks would be largely pointless. It’s not a level playing field.
He also utilises a number of straw men arguments throughout, without citation, so a decent chunk can be ignored as he’s arguing against a fictitious stance he’s created for comedic effect.
Also, there’s a suggestion that an insult doesn’t carry weight, impact or importance. Which isn’t true. Again, insulting him would largely achieve very little, but that’s really not the case for most people, especially those who are already struggling in society.
Allowing any arbitrary insult, especially in the widely visible and indefinitely indelible world of the internet, can have long, deep and destructive implications on those on the receiving end of them.
Words have power, those who lie, deceive or misconstrue facts should be held to account for it.
As Pratchett said, a lie can travel around the world before the truth can get it’s boots on.
I like it as long as the social contract is made clear. The problem is a social contract is basically a set of rules people have consented to “explicitly or tacitly” in order to participate in society.
So while this is good in situations, like people taking offense when someone uses a racial slur in a city.
It could in theory be bad, like practicing an unpopular religion in a rural town.
It is easier than that. Rejecting violence is only possible when collectively agreed upon, since after all everyone has the capacity for violence. When someone breaks this agreement, referred to as the social contract, they incite violence upon all. Being the target of violence after causing it is natural. The hard thing is recognizing that there is such a system in place all the time, namely the state’s monopoly on violence, which has to be treated with the utmost care else risk the total decimation of social structure.
Bingo!
Thats the problem with this whole “intolerate the intolerant” debacle. What are calls to violence and segregation against groups of people and what is just “shit i dont agree with”? Theres a subset of people that group both of this thogeter and use this argument to try and censor people that they dont agree with, and its specially bad when governments or companies do this.
This really shouldnt be thrown around so lightly like if it was an absolute thruth, specially since those that do just whant to push their agenda presenting both it and themselves as fundamentally correct, and taking into account that this was originally a thought experiment and not like an absolutetist declaration.
One example would be youtube taking away the downvote counter claiming they where protecting small chanels from harasment.
Edit: Youtube just used that as an excuse to protect its interests and the ones of other companies, not to protect people from harasment by censoring anyone that disagrees with any video. Its doing bad things in the name of intolerating the intolerant and silencing digresion.
Tolerance is tolerating someone doing something you don’t like.
Intolerance is not allowing people to do things you don’t like. Or not tolerating their existence. Basically forcing your lack of tolerance on others.
I shouldnt make this next argument because im gonna put a target on my back but its the best example i can think of that puts that into question.
So women that go into their respective bathroom shouldnt feell uncomfortable because a clearly transgender woman goes into the same bathroom?
Should the transgender woman shouldnt go into the male bathroom if she feels uncomfortable going in it but should impose herself onto women that feel uncumfortable with her prescensce in the womens bathroom?
Who is the intolerant one there?
Are women that feel uncumfortable intolerant because a trans women that was formerly a man whants to share the same intimate space as the normal women?
Is the trans woman the intolerant one because they whant to go to the bathroom they feel more comfortable with?
That is a case in my opinion where tolerance gets challenged by both sides involved because the other one is getting into the privacy of the other.
You could say that woman shouldnt interfere with the bussines of the trans woman but you could say the same thing about the trans woman. So who is the intolerant here? Both?
In cases like that some people should be excused to at the very least for being uncomfortable and against the precense of the other person because at least in this case it is in and of itself interefering with the other parties privacy.
Feeling something and not keeping other people from doing it is being tolerant. It isn’t being accepting, which is better*, but it is still tolerating and not imposing those feelings ok someone else.
Bathroom bans are intolerant.
As a side note, a transgender woman is not ‘imposing herself’ on women who feel uncomfortable. That is like saying black men are imposing on people who fear then based on racist bullshit. Saying someone existing as who they are is not imposing on others.
Is the trans woman the intolerant one because they whant to go to the bathroom they feel more comfortable with?
This is comical in twisting someone’s existence as negatively impacting someone else because of the other person’s bigoted views. People will push back because your hot take is terrible and you should take some biology and sociology classes to understand how not everyone fits into male/female biologically, much less how they are perceived in society.
*acceptance means actually accepting them for who they are, what they believe in, and how they act ad long as it does not negatively impact someone else.
I knew the race thing was gonna be pulled out from this. And i do understeand why they could be seen as the same thing. But they arent.
This is comical in twisting someone’s existence as negatively impacting someone else because of the other person’s bigoted views
Sexuality and gender are a very heavy isue for people, thats the reason they get all riled up when it comes to bathrooms, be it the gender conforming and nonconforming crowds. You cant and shouldnt force people that dont feel comfortable with sharing it with people with gender fluidity because it is being imposed into them and can cause them to lash out against them. Its not because of hate of bigotry, its just because they persieve the trans woman as not a woman, or a man, which isnt very progresive buy it is valid to feel uncomfortable by it, not everyone will be as progresive as they should, and their right to have their privacy respected should be… well… respected. Rape is a very heavy topic for women, and some consider it even worse than murder, and some women could feel like if they are raped in some way by having a non gender conforming person int the sanctuary of a bathroom where they feel they are the most vulnerable. But that doesnt mean that trans people should be excluded from using bathrooms. At the end they have fisiological needs like everybody else and if they dont whant to go to the mens bathroom because they feel the same discormfort as biowomen then thats fine and should be respected, but it doesnt mean that they should be imposed to biowomen.
That was my point all along, that answers arent as easy nor black and white, hell they arent even gray most of the time. Solving social isues are not as easy as just shutting people of and infringing into their right to talk (i mean some of them are like shuting up the fucking nazis) and most of the time require people that clash with them to go into a compromise by sorting outh their diferences.
And that whole discussion could leads us to the solution of having a third bathroom. It doesnt infringe of genderconforming women and lets trans women use a bathroom without making anybody uncomfortable, you can make a 4th bathroom for trans men too , hell you can make a 5th bathroom for absolutelly everyone that has no problem sharing a bathroom with non gender conforming people if its that big of an isue to people. Now it is not a perfect solution and you go into more problems if you include factors like costs or space.but my point is that a solution was proposed, and that doesnt happen if you censor people by casting them as intolerant.
Bathroom bans are intolerant.
I didnt whant to call this out but it is a bad take and you already whent ad hominem with the whole “take biology class you biggot” thing so im gonna do that ad hominem thing too. So under the intolerating the intolerant logic and by your take a man that percieves themselves as a man can go into the womans bathroom because women are being intollerant to men by not letting them into the womans bathroom, and that gives them the right of being intolerant to women and therefore using the same bathroom as them? So by that same logic anybody can get into your room without your permision because you are being intolerant to them going into your room so that gives them the right to not tolerate you and enter your room as they please? Thats just chaos at that point, and thats why there should be at least a neutral bathroom if we are to take that type of claims seriously which imo we shouldnt but it would be fair i guess to have one. Think better before you claim something as absolute.
It’s like you don’t know what words mean.
Nazis usually don’t. Words mean whatever they need them to mean.
Same about you m8.
deleted by creator
There’s usually a very clear difference between an attempt to remove or limit a class of people and disagreement with a class of people. It just requires a little bit of analysis.
Take the conservative Midwest and LGBT for example. For a period of time, the attitude was “while my faith says LGBT might not be great, I won’t stand in the way of equity.” More recently, the attitude has been “because my faith says LGBT might not be great, I’m going to actively remove protections for classes of people.”
I am neither a member of any faith nor LGBT. To me, it’s pretty fucking obvious the former attitude is tolerant and the latter attitude is intolerant. I am very tolerant of people of faith. I am very intolerant of faith-based government policy that strips my peers of their rights. I am going to actively censor folks that advocate for treating other human beings worse than themselves because that’s fucking dumb. Actively censoring often means having a discussion about why treating someone like shit isn’t tolerant.
At the end of the day I’m also tolerant of your opinion because you’re not advocating to demean a class of people. I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.
I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.
I wrote the complete oposite of that m8… wtf? Corporations shouldnt have a say on what is hate speech because critisisms to them or against their agendas will be gaslighted by them into being hate speech, specially in their platforms, and governments should punish calls to violence/segretation/discrimination in public forums, nothing more, nothing else. I never talked about removing anybodies rights.
What are calls to violence and segregation against groups of people and what is just “shit i dont agree with”?
This is really all that hard to answer. I mean, theoretically, it is. Practically, though? There’s an well-researched connection between a group characterized as “invading pests” and political violence against that group, for example. There was an increase in violence against Asians during the coronavirus pandemic, too. And it’d be ridiculous to believe that calling it the “Wuhan flu” wasn’t related to that violence.
Frankly, many calls to violence that masquerade as “shit I don’t agree with”. Merely calling someone “evil” is, imo, a call to violence. It least justifies it, because evil is not to be persuaded or collaborated with, but driven out and opposed militantly at every step. Especially at the national level, characterizations of evil preclude more deliberative alternatives by default.
But many people don’t think that way and don’t see the connection between words and violence. I also don’t think many value more peaceful alternatives to violence either…but that’s just my opinion.
Honestly no.
It is easy to diferentiate those things.
For example;
“I dont like that x people do z thing because it affects y people in a negative way.”
This one its not calling for violence against x people. its calling out x people for affecting y people in a negative way. Now if people get violent about it its because there is no denying that there is a number of people that already hate x people and are looking for anu excuse to lash out against x people, and they are gonna end up doing just that whatever they find it or not.
“I dont like x people because they could be a negative influence in our community.”
Its a hard one but it is a call to segregation because it is saying that x people dont belong on the comunity that whoever is talking belongs in, now wathever this is true or not, by saying that it is implied that taking them out of the comunity would be a positive thing. So it is a call to do bad things but very subtelly.
So should the 2nd one be banned? No imho because it is very subtle about it and could be said as a genuine mistake. But it should and will be called out by people that dont agree with it and smart people would see it as a poor argument because it calls for segregation, and while a very bad opinnion it shouldnt be outhright banned, just called out and laughed at.
Now what should be punished or banned should br saying in a very public forum in front of lots of people something like the following:
“I dont like X people, they harm the good people of our community and they should be exilled from it and punished for their crimes such as z”
This one is an obvius one, it calls for violence and segregation for x people, punishment and comes of more as rallying than a genuine argument. So yeah, bann that.
I made that frase and used it as an example because people that use the “tolerance is intolerance to the intollerant” argument usually use it because they dont tolerate someone else having diferent opinions than them and say they are being intolerant when that is not true. And censoring genuine diferent points of view that do not call for violence or segregation is in my opinion a form of discrimination/segregation. So they themselves are doing what they preach is bad.
