uri
Scot HackerBest explanation I've seen of why the Paradox of Tolerance is no paradox at all.
Thom Holwerda@shacker I'm not sure how deep this goes in other countries, but in The Netherlands there's this annoying tendency to try and engage with intolerance, as if they had a rational debate when they stormed the beaches of Normandy.
Some people just should not be engaged. Some people are just too far gone and it's totally okay to treat them for what they are - nazis - and ignore them so we can focus our energy on the rest of us.
@thomholwerda Very well said. It can be a tough to thread the needle sometimes, often when trying to figure out if someone is debating "in good faith" or just wasting your time by masquerading as a fair debater. But yeah at some point you realize there's no getting through, and just need to just let it go. As difficult as that is sometimes.
Seirdy@shacker @thomholwerda Engaging in bad faith is a risk that sometimes bears reward. Look up the viral “do you know how much a slave cost” video for my favorite example.
It pays off when a larger audience gets to see them remove their masks.
Daniël Franke 🏳️🌈@shacker Good explanation, and I agree, but "Contract of tolerance" doesn't have the same ring to it.. :)
Woozle Hypertwin@shacker source for the cited inspiration: Tolerance is not a moral precept
(see also Issuepedia)
ted byfield
Scot Hacker (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image Best explanation I've seen of why the Paradox of Tolerance is no paradox at all. #philosophy
Elle Nerdinger M.A.@shacker #Alt4You to copy/paste edit
The Paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
@forschungstorte Thank you, added! Hopefully someday my Masto client Ivory will support Alt text during posting.
Aral Balkan@shacker @forschungstorte Wow, it doesn’t? That’s unconscionable. What’s the deal, @ivory?
(I just downloaded the app to test but I’m not going to subscribe just to see whether or not it allows accessible toots or not as posting is a premium feature.)
PS. Thanks for adding the alt text in. Will boost now.
Ivory by Tapbots 
Uckermark MacGyver 
@ivory @aral @shacker @forschungstorte I can definitely confirm that this work in #Ivory since the beginning. Using it all the time ... find it quite conveniently implemented actually.
@maxheadroom @ivory @aral @forschungstorte This is the entirety of the provided UI, with no option to add alt text during posting from the share sheet.
Martin Kelly@aral it does. Scot just had trouble separating “doesn’t do it” and “doesn’t do it the way I want”
@shacker @forschungstorte (not in the share sheet though)
@potatogunkelly @forschungstorte Right, that’s all I’m talking about, the share sheet. Because that is the only way my image posts originate.
@shacker @forschungstorte cool! Is it worth editing the original post to say that then, since it looks like it’s generating a lot of unneeded side traffic?
@potatogunkelly @forschungstorte Did I say otherwise at some point? Not sure I want to dig through this mega thread. Let it be.
@shacker yep! You made a factually incorrect statement, and loads of people took your incorrect statement at face value and responded to it, and as I can see you responding to them and clarifying we both know you know that‘s the case, so I‘m not sure what purpose you think this disingenuity serves beyond giving me a super accurate read on the value of reading you or engaging with you but it has definitely accomplished that
Baessito 
☭🇧🇷🇺🇳🇵🇸
GrayGooGirl 🏳️🌈@shacker
I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. If the only reason to not tolerating intolerance is that it violates the social contract, then by extension we shouldn't tolerate anything that violates the social contract, which makes the people who set policies about what is socially acceptable able to dictate who should or shouldn't be tolerated. This is why queer folk have suffered ostracization and demonization for so long. You can't really divorce ethics from tolerance.
I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. If the only reason to not tolerating intolerance is that it violates the social contract, then by extension we shouldn't tolerate anything that violates the social contract, which makes the people who set policies about what is socially acceptable able to dictate who should or shouldn't be tolerated. This is why queer folk have suffered ostracization and demonization for so long. You can't really divorce ethics from tolerance.
Ostrich@graygoogirl @shacker Yes, and what exactly is the social contract? In a fascist society, the contract is that you must maintain loyalty to the state and constantly prove it with service and sacrifice. By the standard set forth in this thread, fascism would be "tolerant".
Tolerance is by definition unconditional, and a society that faces no paradox of tolerance is probably neither free nor just.
Tracy Hall@ostrich @graygoogirl @shacker
you are pedantically changing the definition. The "social contract" of tolerance is ONLY the agreement to tolerate EACH OTHER. Your definition of "acceptance" is an example of NOT tolerating, and is thus completely irrelevant.
The point is that the ideal of tolerance is NOT a suicide pact.
@video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker It's not pedantry, it's a very important line to understand the shape of. The idea of conditional basic rights colors a lot of informal systems of oppression right now- especially the kinds that kill sex workers, trans folks, and folks of color. The idea that we can look the other way when people are raped in prison if they were "bad enough" is part and parcel of rights and tolerance being part of a breachable "contract".
@video_manager It's a shame that you're not trying to understand what I'm saying and instead jump straight to dismissing what I'm saying as bad faith.
I understand precisely what you're talking about, and you are changing the subject to force discussion of it. Lack of acceptance IS NOT TOLERANCE which is the POINT of the OP.
I'm sure you WANT to discuss a different, broader social evil. Respectable. But that is NOT this discussion.
@video_manager There was never a discussion here about the line between "tolerance" and "acceptance", and that also is not objectively definite for everyone. Can a tolerant society refuse to protect marginalized groups from discrimination in employment, housing, education, and healthcare? Can a tolerant society force you to bake a birthday cake for Hitler?
Please. Read something beyond philosophy 101.
Answer is blatantly "no"; you know it, and you want to derail for your pedantic games. Go away.
Edward Newton@ostrich @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker You're jumping to a lot of conclusions.
1. "Not tolerating intolerance" doesn't mean "ignoring prison abuse."
2. "'Tolerance' has an expectation of behavior, fascism has an expectation of behavior, therefore you're the same" sounds good, but makes no practical sense. By this logic, cyanide gas and birthday cakes are morally equivalent because they both require a recipe.
This isn't an issue that can be solved with abstractions. The outcomes matter.
@edwardnewton @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker This is a "so you hate waffles?" reply. This has absolutely nothing to do with my response, you're literally inventing things that you imagine I said in order to avoid engaging with my criticism.
@ostrich @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker You assumed that being intolerant of intolerance demands conditional basic human rights. That is incorrect. What else did I miss?
@ostrich @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker I'll add: you cannot define it to simply mean the rules of *any* social contract - it is specifically about the agreement to peacefully co-exist.
When that's broken, then people are no longer required to peacefully coexist with you.
It can't be applied to queer people just for existing - that's still within the agreement. Saying "queer people can't exist as they are" is the "first shot" fired in this exchange.
@edwardnewton @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker "the agreement to peacefully coexist" isn't definite. I assume that you have been paying attention in the past few years to the fact that the US Conservative movement has been spinning Black Lives Matter protests as "racist rioting", essentially pushing the agenda that they have broken the social contract and therefore do not "deserve tolerance". They have done the same thing with the "trans day of vengeance".
@ostrich @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker They are absolutely twisting the social contract of tolerance to suit their fascistic ideas. Doesn't mean the idea of a social contract of tolerance is bad.
@edwardnewton @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker The idea of a social contract (implying that the governed can breach it and be made homo sacer) is actually fundamentally bad.
@ostrich @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker I'm not sure why you're assuming the social contract is between the government and the governed, or that breaching it means "all bets are off!"
That's something you're bringing to the table, it's not the default.
@edwardnewton @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker Phrase it as between the collective society and its members and it's still the same in essence.
@ostrich You're still assuming breaching the social contract means the person has voided all claim to basic human rights. I don't think it does. Breaking the social contract doesn't mean "now we can torture and murder you."
I'm really not tracking your point here. It seems like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, and I am sure it's just my misunderstanding.
@edwardnewton I mean I'm talking in a discussion where I'm the only one who has taken any time to explain what they think it means to have a "social contract" for "tolerance". I've been asking what we mean by these words and people keep acting like they have common meanings. I keep explaining they do not, and people get mad at me for it.
@ostrich I understand a "social contract" to be an implied or explicit agreement between people living within a given space: an apartment, a region, a nation, the planet - specifically for the purposes of allowing harmony between as many parties as possible (with the assumption that no party has privileged status over another).
Is your definition different from mine?
@edwardnewton The question is what the scope of the agreement is, what the conditions of it being considered broken are, and what the recourse is when it is broken.
Hobbes's social contract, for example, considers every aspect of society outside of Hobbesian Anarchy (i.e.: constant interpersonal war) to be part of the social contract. It also essentially defines a totalitarian state.
@ostrich those are all things that need to be considered and agreed upon as part of a social contract, yes. What's the problem?
@edwardnewton The problem is that the idea of a social contract frames the ideas of rights as privileges, and the idea that tolerance is a privilege and not a right is basically the entire theory underlying National Conservatism and is very compatible with fascism.
@ostrich Tolerance is not a privilege, it's a mutually agreed upon pact.
Under the social contract of mutual tolerance, the first person to withdraw from the contract is the one who has voided the tolerance extended to them. That's the idea.
Can that be twisted to fascist ends? Of course. There is nothing that can't be. That doesn't make it intrinsically bad.
Natanael ⚠️@ostrich @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker thus proportionality principle and other principles of due process
@Natanael_L @video_manager @graygoogirl @shacker What is proportional is contentious, contextual, and argued at length every single day. It's not objective without a central arbitration authority like a judge.
⁂ Fish Id Wardrobe@graygoogirl @shacker Why do you think someone else gets to decide what I think the social contract is? Do we all think we have exactly the same social contract? Are we free to ignore the parts of it we find unacceptable?
@shacker This is a bad take. The social system that conditions your basic human rights on meeting a set of obligations is called fascism.