Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
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
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.
Why did she apologize for agreeing?
Some kind of advanced rhetorical technique, probably.
She could be Canadian
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.
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.
It honestly reads like everybody is going to stand up and clap or something.
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.
We get muddy when we move from "physical violence" to "the threat of physical violence". It runs us into the "I'm not touching you" game on one end and Nextdoor paranoia on the other.
Is someone tolerant if they come right up to the line of what defines tolerance and acts like an asshole within the strict bounds of the law? Is someone intolerant when they violate (often unwittingly) some local rule of decorum or social taboo? Is someone intolerant if they are startled into a panic? What if they conspire to sow panic without actually getting their hands dirty inflicting harm? If we're the victim of violence from an unknown source, what then? If we're the victim of violence that we falsely attribute, are we intolerant? Is the falsely accused subject now flagged as intolerant?
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.
More broadly, how do you tolerate someone or something you don't know or understand? How do you deal with perception bias?
I'm reminded of growing up in the 90s and having people freak out over "loud rap music". The media bias against young black men and their taste in music is very clearly an example of intolerance. But the dialogue of the era framed playing this music (particularly the edgy stuff like NWA or Biggy) as itself an act of intolerance.
How do you square that contradiction? Who gets to adjudicate the offender and the offended? What gets defined as tolerable?
OP's image doesn't really set that out.
This all makes sense when you remember that the underlying topic here is bigotry. Ergo, tolerance is defined in those terms. Not in the more general terms.
The right uses the "paradox of tolerance" to hide what this is ultimately about, a common tactic.
It isn't about tolerating all ideas. It is about tolerating groups of people different from yourself.
Put another way, if society has a rule "don't be a bigot" and then someone is a bigot and gets in trouble, is society bigoted against bigots? No. Of course not. Thinking that would be asinine. Society is enforcing rules against bigotry.
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.
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.
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.
It's only a paradox if you're a mentally handicapped bigot. It makes perfect sense to everyone else.
It's formally designated as a paradox because of the way it is originally worded. Those who you mention will abuse it to make it non-logical andnnon-sensic; those who understand realize it is formally a paradox but to all practical matters it is a contract, as we have expressed here.
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.
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?
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.
I agree. We should not tolerate the lactose intolerant.
There's only two things in this world I cannot stand. Intolerance, and the Dutch.
So then those that tolerate the intolerance are also excluded from the contract, right?
Edit: this is a genuine question.
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?"
Is true.
But who/what defines where the boundry is between acceptable and not acceptable?
We all do, constantly, on a case by case basis. We know that if someone makes a sexist off color joke, they're probably just joking, and we can choose how much we want to validate or invalidate their tasteless joke. If someone is actively calling for the extermination of a specific group of people, we can decide on a case by case basis how severe our response should be to them.
Do you actively encourage harm to others minding their own fucking business.
I like to think of it as multiple contracts or rules that create different and incompatible kinds of societies, and everyone has to decide what they prefer. E.g. do you want to live in a Nazi society or a pluralistic society? They are fundamentally incompatible, so supporting one means you cannot tolerate the other.
There is no paradox in this, and also no question about who starts the intolerance or whose intolerance is justified. We all just pick which path we prefer, and what we should do follows from there.