Scot HackerBest explanation I've seen of why the Paradox of Tolerance is no paradox at all.
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".
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.
@edwardnewton I'm not sure what the difference is. Tolerance being contingent on being part of a pact makes it a privilege versus a right, which is unconditional.
It's more than just twisted to fascist ends, it's a core belief of fascists that tolerance is contingent. Fascism is incompatible with a society where tolerance is a basic human right.
The entire point of the paradox of tolerance is that fascism wants to force you to make tolerance conditional because that is where they thrive.
@ostrich no. The paradox of tolerance is that if we are 100% tolerant, intolerant (fascist) actors will leverage the mechanisms of tolerance to seize power and destroy tolerance entirely.
This isn't hypothetical: this is what fascists have literally done before.
The paradox is: to preserve tolerance, we must be intolerant of the intolerant.
It's a way of applying abstract ideals to the uncomfortable and imperfect world we live in.
@edwardnewton How does tolerance get destroyed if it's unconditional? 🤔
@ostrich Because we don't live in an abstract world of thoughts and "oughts." We live in a messy world of people, some of whom cannot be made to care about philosophical principles and will happily deprive someone of their rights, regardless of how loudly they shout "my rights are unconditional and do not depend on mutual agreement!"
Socially speaking, nothing that has to be recognized by others can exist without mutual agreement.
@edwardnewton In that case, what is the point of having a social contract of tolerance at all? If you're presupposing that the people whose intolerant ends you want to prevent aren't going to be changed by principles, what's the point in compromising your own commitment to those principles?
@ostrich because I want those principles to actually exist - not just theoretically exist as an ideal - for as many people as possible.
And that means being prepared to deal with bad actors.