Tolerance is a social contract yes. The contract says, ‘I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me’.
Basically if a group has a stated purpose of wanting you dead, they’re in breach and lose their protection.
yep! pretty straightforward but for some reason the populus has chosen the whole “bUt It’S a PaRadOx” schtick instead of this very clear cut line of thinking.
imagine if i insisted on calling my landlord breaking my lease contract resulting in me moving out and stopping rent payments a “paradox.”
or what if historians called the US breaking of the Treaty of Fort Laramie resulting in the end of the peace a “paradox?”
least persuasive and reasonable way to express it ever. frankly laughably so. “play <rights violations> games, win <rights violations> prizes”
This word salad is harder to understand than the paradox.
It doesn’t even matter. You’re not going to convince the nazis that your ideology is internally consistent. And the rest of us who hate the nazis are already convinced.
We’re not though, there are plenty of groups that have vile hateful ideologies but whom people still think we should be giving space for their views and respect and even airtime.
That’s true, and not even just hateful. There are plenty of ideologies that just plain refuse to recognize the victims as victims. They’re not filled with hate, they’re filled with total indifference
edit: the person im replying to unkindly edited their comment to make the following look snarky and rude. i’m leaving it up for posterity but just know it was more meaningful in the original context.
if you think “tolerance is a contract” is too hard to understand yikes
if you think it’s not worth it to persuade the moderates who haven’t yet succumbed to nazism that human rights can be protected, fucking yikes
lukewarm, status-quo supporting comment 👎
No. That third panel is terribly worded.
You meant to say whatever is in your comment starting “yep! Pretty straightforward…” but whatever is in the actual image is meaningless and I even knew what you meant.
they edited their comment say something totally different than what i responded to.
i welcome a rewriting of the third panel. please be kind.
“Tolerance is a social contract and those who break the contract do not deserve tolerance. There is no paradox.” ?
just seeing this now but i had already posted an edit, thanks.
deleted by creator
thank you for your edit i wish you just made it as a reply because i could have acted on it sooner.
edited the third panel.
Way I like to frame it, tolerance is peace.
… and a peace treaty is only worth honoring so long as both sides are living up to it.
Some people don’t deserve to be treated with kindness or common decency because they don’t give that out to others.
Have tolerance as a default attitude. However, if someone shows themselves to be intolerant and not willing to learn, hammer them into the ground like a fucking tent peg.
It’s only a paradox to the kind of moron who thinks pacifism also means you’re not allowed to defend yourself if someone randomly starts beating on you
Think of it this way: we have many ways to represent the number 8 (assume decimal throughout here). 4+4, 9-1, 4x2, sqrt(64), etc, etc. This is the freedom to see things how you want as long as your end conclusion is correct, and if you get it wrong and accidentally say that 2x5 is 8, be immediately willing to admit you were wrong.
But when you say 10+10 is 8 and demand that it is true, then you have no say in the discourse of the representation of 8 because it is obviously incorrect. (Again, remember: we’re talking decimal here, so no BUT BUT BASE 4!) You are just completely misunderstanding facts and reality, and you do not get to be treated with any sort of “tolerance” or people saying “okay, you’re right” as some sort of laughable “peace treaty” – you’re just wrong. And the sooner EVERYONE pushes that on you and refuses to bend to your flawed thinking, the sooner you’ll figure out that life is easier when you aren’t an asshole that goes against common sense and logic.
And I always love how people throw things back on me that I’ve said that they view as going against this when there is no common sense OR logic in their arguments.
you’re not wrong but i’ve already been yelled at for posting this post of “word salad” that was apparently too confusing yet much shorter than this 🙃
People who think that is “word salad” are too stupid to have an opinion in the first place.
i did edit it a bit following the criticism but yeah i didn’t appreciate getting that attack where everyone else clearly knows what i mean like just read bro
Human rights should be a guarantee, not based on tolerance per se because as mentioned by someone else already social contracted are easy to ignore or break
If you reject the humanity of “others” then you aren’t guaranteed human of freedom.
Deciding that other humans are “less than” because of their nationality, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation means you’ve already rejected the universal tenant OG human rights and have forfeited participation in human society.
If I as a right wing dickhead am convinced that a certain minority commits a certain crime / leeches off someone’s pockets / whatever, then from my point of view, this minority did breach the social contract of tolerance first. I think the problem is not some weird paradox but the mere fact that the right is actually convinced what they state is true.
Hence, the problem of allowing misinformation to circulate and fantasies to be fostered and built.
