this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
1452 points (94.1% liked)
Comic Strips
14301 readers
3090 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tolerance paradoxically demands intolerance of the intolerant.
It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.
In fact, we don't treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren't tolerant then other people aren't obliged to tolerate you in turn
This here - the social contract view needs to be widely adopted
Agreed. Respect for what is essentially the golden rule is the bare minimum to be accepted by a rational society.
The term paradox was used because it comes from the "so much for the tolerant X" instances during mid XXth century. It's the incorrect assumption that tolerance is somehow a foundational principle of some ideology, mainly left, socialist and communist ideology; just because they were protesting intolerant policy and stances from the right. The right stupidly believes that this means that the left advocates for unlimited tolerance of everything as an extension of fundamental freedoms, like free speech and free thought.
This was at a time when the debate on the lawful limits of freedom in democracies was raging. In comes Karl Popper and produces the formal philosophical formulation of the paradox. He starts at freedom and demonstrates that in order for a free open and peaceful society to exist, then they must be tolerant, but, they must not held tolerance as a tenet, instead being intolerant of any intolerance. It is important as the first philosophical formulation of liberal democratic thinking. It actually distances itself from communism because, according to Popper, communism and even socialism will always end up in bloodshed, violence, and suffering.
The concept of social contract was not unknown to Popper, but it was not necessary for his argument to make sense. For, since Weber, it's understood as a given that wherever humans happen to live in community, some form of social contract will exist. Popper is not concerned with the existence of the contract, but to argue about its content.
That realization was life-changing for me. It finally gave me the clarity to walk away from toxic relationships, knowing they were the ones holding back any real growth.
The only downside is that trying to explain this to someone intolerant just gets you labeled, quote, "a stupid science bitch who can't make them smarter."
science bitches are the best kind
smart is sexy!
It's not really a paradox when you think about it. In fact, it's absolutely necessary.
Yeah i originally was going to write "seemingly paradoxically" but it made it seem more like I was saying "seems to demand..." And I wanted to make sure it came across as a definite, if you know what i mean.
Specifically the lactose intolerant.
I have a theory about lactose intolerance. You now how humans in general just struggle with digesting lactose unless the body has built up enzymes over time. I think lactose intolerant people are just dairy addicts haha.
I'll just leave this here... (see alt/hover text for TLDR)
Those are ok, they can stay.
Usually they tend to move around reaching for a bathroom :p
It's Karl Popper time!
Curious. How does that work when someone is beating you with a baseball bat or robbing you?
As MartianSands pointed out, tolerance is not a philosophy; it is a social contract. When intolerance breaks that contract, the tolerant are under no obligation to tolerate it.
You don't tolerate it....? Is this supposed to be a trick question? Sometimes when you don't tolerate something, you are largely powerless against it and it still happens. Sucks, but that's life. You don't have to roll over and present your balls to the bat though.