cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6541859

Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. 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.

  • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙English
    1•1 year ago

    First, see my comments here where I learn a little bit and explain why I still don’t like the idea. But you’ll probably get the TL;DR from this reply.

    You’re speaking to two separate issues here. Seems like you’re on the same page regarding tolerance, so I’ll practice some more of that today and see if I can explain the concept of a social contract in layman’s terms. Presuming that you’re not trolling here.

    I enjoy trolling sometimes (mostly shitposting), but I’m not trolling here.

    In essence, the ‘social contract’ is a mutual agreement between individuals and their respective systems of government that states, “I will allow some of my personal sovereign rights to be curtailed by you in exchange for peace and security”.

    This is just called law isn’t it? I can understand that the idea of a social contract may have existed prior to the idea of “law”, but if that’s the case I am curious why the idea of ‘social contract’ is even brought up, if we can discuss it in the context of law.

    These curtailed rights are absolute freedoms, e.g. the freedom to kill anyone or steal from your neighbor - rights which everyone has but in practice few people use because most people prefer peace and to be left alone.

    This gave me pause and I needed to re-read it a bit. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, is this describing a group of people selling the idea of protection (from death or theft) for the fee of being governed (and being punished if they kill or steal)? Again, not trolling, just trying to understand who the players are in this social contract, and trying to understand the period (which would have to had been in a maybe hypothetical period before conquests, or maybe there’s just no ‘selling’ / consent and the ‘social contract’ is entered into by way of knights and swords and the threat of death if you don’t comply).

    rights which everyone has but in practice few people use because most people prefer peace and to be left alone.

    I think most people don’t want to kill / steal because it’s socially disadvantageous to do so. Cooperation that happens from communities, but also from fear of how communities may retaliate if you go after one of their own. That sounds closer to ‘social contract’ but I’d argue it’s less of a contract and more of a fact of life which can be observed in other species.

    The social contract is what gives governments the right to rule - because governments are supposed to protect their citizens against the 1% of people in any given society that want to break laws for their own benefit. This obviously is where things start to break down when put into practice. Hopefully you can see how it’s supposed to work and why it’s essential for modern society. It’s a give and take.

    This is where I think it’s important to make the distinction of exactly what a social contract is, because at this point it sounds like anything between:

    • a mob offering protection in the form of payment of some sort
    • a country that offers you legal immigration literally selling you on the idea of life in that country because they need more of your profession in their country badly.
    • a goverment waring and taking over your land and imposing new laws on you which you did not consent to. (“if you don’t like it, you can leave!”)
    • what I just said, but you can’t leave (north korea, except for the waring).

    But again, this sounds like law, governance and in some cases, depending on the discussion topic, taxation.

    If you don’t like the social contract in your area, then you vote with your feet if you can. Go somewhere else where they won’t care if you dump your night soil into the river, or that won’t give you problems if you decide to rob your neighbor. Places like that are usually pretty rough though.

    This sounds like “If you don’t like it, you can leave”. And it sounds like law, and governance.

    If that’s the case, we know the ‘social contract’ is legal, but is it moral? Does the ‘social contract’ benefit society? And most importantly what happens when one social contract explicitly states that the other social contracts cannot exist?

    • @[email protected]English
      1•1 year ago

      I think most people don’t want to kill / steal because it’s socially disadvantageous to do so. Cooperation that happens from communities, but also from fear of how communities may retaliate if you go after one of their own. That sounds closer to ‘social contract’ but I’d argue it’s less of a contract and more of a fact of life which can be observed in other species.

      I guess the way that I perceive a social contract is like this, but codified and enforced by a governing body in the form of laws. In a perfect world, the laws wouldn’t be necessary, but there’s always someone who will maliciously shit the bed and they’re why the laws exist. Rational minds may think differently than I do of course and it may be simple but that’s how I see things.

      And yes - if you don’t like the social contract where you live, you move if you can. Or you rebel against it I guess, with all of the consequences that either of those actions would come with. Morality doesn’t really enter into the discussion in my opinion because governments are not inherently moral in my estimation - they are judged by how they treat and take care of their people. If governments fail to take care of their citizens then the government should be reformed or replaced with one that will.

      You liken a government to a mob offering protection for money, and that is an apt comparison. Don’t short change the tax man or they’ll throw you in the clink. Do I like that? Not particularly, but I do like the fire department and the federally funded roads I use, so it’s a trade off. I could choose to live in the uncharted, unclaimed woods in some backwater country and shit in a bucket to avoid all this cultural folderol, but I like my creature comforts and also I don’t wanna shit in a bucket more than is strictly necessary.

      If one contract or group says another contract or group can’t exist, then we’re back at the paradox of tolerance again. Why do they think that way? Is it religion/caste/some other BS that causes this group to be intolerant of others? The end result of this difference of opinion, if not reconciled, generally leads to conflict. Better to talk these differences out if possible, you know?

      • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙English
        1•1 year ago

        If one contract or group says another contract or group can’t exist, then we’re back at the paradox of tolerance again. Why do they think that way? Is it religion/caste/some other BS that causes this group to be intolerant of others? The end result of this difference of opinion, if not reconciled, generally leads to conflict. Better to talk these differences out if possible, you know?

        Ultimately, I think it always ends up at the paradox, if you take any of these things to there logical conclusions. It would be great if we could convert nazis via discussion and logical debate, and indeed I enjoy seeing it when it happens. But a group seeking to eliminate a population will start working to eliminate that population. A society is what we make it. “We” being the people that want to build said society. Nazis are trying to make themselves part of society, and in the society I exist in, they have never been allowed. Nazi isn’t a protected class, or something we can’t change like skin color or where we were born. Nazi is an agenda, and the agenda is to institute their ‘social contract’ upon us, when it isn’t compatible. If show up when they show up, and shit on their parade, run them out of town, unmask their indentities and dox them online, we’re just obeying their social contract against their own.

      • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙English
        2•1 year ago

        Jesus Christ just go watch the Harvard justice series on YouTube. “The social contact” already has a definition that is understood and agreed upon.

        understood and agreed upon by whom? This isn’t a scientific consensus thing here. There’s some problems with the theory, at least when it comes to using it in conversation as any sort of meaningful model.

        Are you autistic?

        What the hell does that have to do with anything?

        I mean that actually, this is like the most pedantic overanalyzing take possible.

        Well that’s just like, your opinion, man.

        If you are you need to work on it.

        Work on what? I’ll give you an example: You need to work on your communication. You are insinuating that you are correct, that I am incorrect, but you’re not using words to explain this, you’re just throwing out psychological diagnoses and telling me I need to work on what… not thinking?

      • @dnickEnglish
        2•1 year ago

        He needs to ‘work’ on his being autistic? Like he needs to tone down this autistic diagnosis you just performed in order for you to accept him?