this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
312 points (96.2% liked)

196

16721 readers
2269 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

do evil games expect evil prizes, thank you Rainer Forst

edit: this is a pedagogical post, not a philosophical one. i actually fully agree with the paradox of tolerance and its conclusion! i just find that it doesn’t work as well as an educational tool for introducing people to the concept. sorry for any confusion :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 96 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's simple really. A tolerant society cannot exist if intolerant factions are tolerated. Ergo, bash the fash.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Which is exactly what the paradox of tolerance says. So why are you agreeing with OP?

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's way simpler to say that tolerance is a contract and you're not bound by a contract breached by the other party, that description isn't paradoxical in any way

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, if you're looking for a simple way to express the concept, that's a good way to do it.

Poppler's formulation isn't meant to be simple. It's meant to be complete.

If I'm teaching an end user how to use the program I wrote, I'm not going to explain the code line by line. But if they ask me why it can't do some random and largely impossible thing that they want, I absolutely need to understand the code in order to explain why that isn't possible.

Understanding Poppler's formulation allows you to address the many ways in which people will try to undermine your simplified version. An example I've used elsewhere in this thread is the idea that "We can't ban Nazis from our platform because then we'd have to ban all forms of political expression. Otherwise we're just playing favourites." It's the "If you censor me then you're the one being intolerant" argument, usually strapped to a slippery slope fallacy about how you'll never stop censoring stuff once you start. And it's very, very effective. Lots of well meaning people who are not Nazis or Nazis sympathizers can still be very easily swayed by this logic.

Poppler cuts through all that. He gives us a clear and definite criteria for what ideas are acceptable and what aren't, and an ironclad justification for why. The theory he lays out is essential knowledge if you ever want to successfully defend the position expressed by "Tolerance is a social contract," or the "Nazi bar" analogy, or any other excellent ways of introducing these ideas.

You don't have to start with Poppler's paradox, but sooner or later you will need it.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

i agree with what it says. i just don’t think it’s good as an educational tool for introducing people to the concept.

e: oops sorry for the double comment

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think it’s more fundamental than that

Tolerance means you accept everyone into the social contract. Everyone. Even the nazis

It’s inappropriate to hit on someone during a work meeting. Inappropriate for gay people, inappropriate for straight people, inappropriate for everyone. At a bar, it’s generally appropriate until told otherwise

If anyone doesn’t follow the social contract, you respond appropriately based on the situation

It’s inappropriate in pretty much all situations to express a desire for ethnic cleansing. It’s inappropriate to say bigoted things. It’s extremely inappropriate to act towards such goals. You should respond appropriately based on the context, as per the social contract

There’s no paradox. You accept the nazis, until they start acting like nazis. If they keep that shit buried deep down, you tolerate them. If they don’t, they’ve broken the social contract

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No. The second you """accept""" the Nazis, your society is no longer tolerant, and is in fact a Nazi state. Get real, bootlicker.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social -1 points 2 weeks ago

Think about it for 2 seconds.

You don’t know what’s in their heart. And frankly, it doesn’t matter.

If they act like a nazi, such as saying Nazi-like things, organizing for Nazi-aligned causes, or spreading hate/violence, you respond appropriately. From social rejection to disrupting them to outright violence, you fight.

Otherwise, how do you even know they’re a Nazi? They might be an idiot swayed by propaganda on fox, they might be an edge lord looking for a reaction, they might be a reformed former Nazi. They might just give you weird vibes and not be a Nazi at all.

These are people we need to reform, not herd into the Nazi echo chambers to become full blown Nazis. They still exist whether you accept them or not

If you want less Nazis in the world, either you kill Nazis, you reduce their recruitment, or you reform them.

That’s what tolerance is- you don’t make assumptions about the person, you say “these behaviors are tolerable, these ones aren’t”