There’s also the social contract resolution to the tolerance paradox. Essentially, the tolerance paradox is that tolerating intolerance erodes tolerance. This means eventually if you allow intolerance to fester, they will seize control and you lose that tolerance.
The social contract resolution is that by being intolerant, you lose your right to be tolerated. This avoids that paradox, but superficially can look like intolerance.
I hope this didn’t end up too much like word salad.
I was able understand it pre-coffee so it made enough sense so hopefully mine won’t be a word salad too
TLDR a long winded version of what you said about the social contract
But to add on, like you said tolerance is a contract that only protects the parties that follow its terms
Example: (pick a group of your choice)
“Hey _____ person, I’ll respect you if you respect me”
Yay everyone’s happy we’re all chilling together even tho I’m 100% certain we have different beliefs down to the core
But when that contract is broken apply that to the blank above, “Hey Nazi, I’ll respect you if you respect me”. They won’t hold up their end of the deal so why should I hold up mine
Yeah, absolutely, that’s a much more readable summation than what I wrote.
As an aside, I really like the social contract theory. It’s a pretty clean philosophical summation of how the majority of people in tolerant democracies see the world and provides the foundation for it, even if they don’t think about it in formal philosophical terms. That essentially we are implicitly bound by the rules established by previous generations, those that set the rules (both cultural and legal), until such time as we form a political or cultural movement to change those rules. Then, anyone who comes after us is bound by those rules we set until and unless they in turn change them.
There’s also the social contract resolution to the tolerance paradox. Essentially, the tolerance paradox is that tolerating intolerance erodes tolerance. This means eventually if you allow intolerance to fester, they will seize control and you lose that tolerance.
The social contract resolution is that by being intolerant, you lose your right to be tolerated. This avoids that paradox, but superficially can look like intolerance.
I hope this didn’t end up too much like word salad.
I was able understand it pre-coffee so it made enough sense so hopefully mine won’t be a word salad too
TLDR a long winded version of what you said about the social contract
But to add on, like you said tolerance is a contract that only protects the parties that follow its terms
Example: (pick a group of your choice) “Hey _____ person, I’ll respect you if you respect me” Yay everyone’s happy we’re all chilling together even tho I’m 100% certain we have different beliefs down to the core
But when that contract is broken apply that to the blank above, “Hey Nazi, I’ll respect you if you respect me”. They won’t hold up their end of the deal so why should I hold up mine
Yeah, absolutely, that’s a much more readable summation than what I wrote.
As an aside, I really like the social contract theory. It’s a pretty clean philosophical summation of how the majority of people in tolerant democracies see the world and provides the foundation for it, even if they don’t think about it in formal philosophical terms. That essentially we are implicitly bound by the rules established by previous generations, those that set the rules (both cultural and legal), until such time as we form a political or cultural movement to change those rules. Then, anyone who comes after us is bound by those rules we set until and unless they in turn change them.