My favorite solution that I’ve heard, is to treat tolerance not as a moral imperative, but rather as a social contract.
Anyone who is tolerant will have tolerance extended to them. Those who are intolerant, on the other hand, can fuck right off.
Yes, I’ve never really seen the paradox as a paradox for that reason. The question, rather, should be what precisely we require from the social contract. The old question of “where is the line at which point my freedom impacts your freedom”. But no matter where that line is, it means that if someone spews hate, you’re allowed to respond in kind
(Morally, that is. If it’s covered by law then legally it should be handled through the justice system and responding in kind would fall under vigilante justice)
Yeah the Internet has insulated people from how a society works. They can “fuck off”… to where? Somewhere they’ll still vote and encourage people to follow their example? Somewhere without people telling them they’re wrong where they can become more and more extreme?
It’s like prison. Yeah let’s take all the people that have a proclivity for crime and put them together. Then teach them to obey the system by using it to punish and traumatize them. After all, they deserve it. They’ll realize that, any day now.
The way I practice it is that everyone gets a basic level of tolerance. Free speech, basic human rights, and a low level of respect and decency. But until you treat others the same there will be a social friction wherever you go and eventually a hard line. Like, no, we don’t want you in here if you’re just going to be an asshole everyday. Come back in a week and we’ll see if you’ve learned some self-control.
Yeah, the paradox of tolerance.
My favorite solution that I’ve heard, is to treat tolerance not as a moral imperative, but rather as a social contract.
Anyone who is tolerant will have tolerance extended to them. Those who are intolerant, on the other hand, can fuck right off.
Yes, I’ve never really seen the paradox as a paradox for that reason. The question, rather, should be what precisely we require from the social contract. The old question of “where is the line at which point my freedom impacts your freedom”. But no matter where that line is, it means that if someone spews hate, you’re allowed to respond in kind
(Morally, that is. If it’s covered by law then legally it should be handled through the justice system and responding in kind would fall under vigilante justice)
They did that in east europe (fucking off), founded ISIS, flooded an area with drugs and overran it.
Yeah the Internet has insulated people from how a society works. They can “fuck off”… to where? Somewhere they’ll still vote and encourage people to follow their example? Somewhere without people telling them they’re wrong where they can become more and more extreme?
It’s like prison. Yeah let’s take all the people that have a proclivity for crime and put them together. Then teach them to obey the system by using it to punish and traumatize them. After all, they deserve it. They’ll realize that, any day now.
Secularly everything has to be a social contract because there is no moral authority.
Well, for your own moral behaviour, you’d be the authority…
You’re saying the same thing.
The way I practice it is that everyone gets a basic level of tolerance. Free speech, basic human rights, and a low level of respect and decency. But until you treat others the same there will be a social friction wherever you go and eventually a hard line. Like, no, we don’t want you in here if you’re just going to be an asshole everyday. Come back in a week and we’ll see if you’ve learned some self-control.