this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
997 points (93.6% liked)

tumblr

3480 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.

  4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

  5. 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:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

ITT: people positive they have broken the paradox.

[–] Wonder_Wandering@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't this argument pre-suppose that we all abide by their idea of tolerance and then use that as evidence for itself?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

So, where do we all stand on the "do unto others as you would have others do on to you" philosophy?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] spark947@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

But we should view it as a moral standard.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Joe-Blow240@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, when do we demand global sanctions on Israel?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›