ID: A scene from Legally Blonde of a conversation between Warner and Elle in the corridor at Harvard, in 4 panels:

  1. Warner asks “What happened to the tolerant left?”

  2. Elle replies, smiling “Who said we were tolerant?”

  3. Warner continues “I thought you were supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs!”

  4. Elle looks confused “Why would we tolerate bigotry, inequity, or oppression?”

  • rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1410·
    2 days ago

    This doesn’t eliminate the paradox. Why does the contract exist in the first place?

    It’s a moral standard. If moral people didn’t decide that tolerance was a good thing for society, the contract wouldn’t exist.

    So yes, thinking about it as a contract sidesteps the paradox, but the paradox still exists.

    So Karl Popper was still right and society shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      There’s no paradox. Although, Karl Popper’s words are as good as any.

      My point is, no one said “the left have to tolerate everything.” In fact, not tolerating capitalism is the defining feature of all left leaning ideologies. More so, where you are on the scale of leftism is based almost entirely on the extent to which you won’t tolerate capitalism. Rhetorically, for what possible reason would the left ever have to tolerate nazis, in the first place? Who said they did? Where are they? Of course, no one said they did.

      I found it’s best to, rightly, just reject the false premise of it being a paradox out of hand. The type who use it know its BS too.

    • cynar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      Basically, I want my various types of weirdness tolerated by others. Others want their weirdness tolerated. We mutually agree that it’s beneficial to each of us to tolerate each other. This gets expanded to other forms of weirdness. So long as it doesn’t significantly impinge on others who dont want it, we have no reason not to be tolerant of others. This is the social contract.

      Intolerance inherently impinges on others. While it might not impinge on my personal weirdness, I will still fight against it. I know it could be me next, and I would hope others would stand with me then. In turn, I will do that for others, both because it is right (in my mind) and because I don’t want to be targeted next.

      I will default to assuming people are happy with the contract. If they demonstrate disagreement, or contempt for the contract, then I withdraw its protections.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      2 days ago

      You just need to tolerate their life and continued living, don’t need to give them anything more.

      • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        412·
        2 days ago

        Sounds exactly like how someone might justify things like internment camps, forced sterilization, and segregation.

        “Hey, they’re alive and continuing to live, so what’s the problem?”

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
          52·
          2 days ago

          Well, no the argument would be to remove them otherwise. It’s AGAINST that stuff.

          Life is sacred, even filth deserve to live. Dont support their business, dont serve them, eventually they will be off on their own and “segregate” themselves. If it’s their own doing and choice so they can survive, well they can be their own “remote tribe” and be with their own kind.

          They’re free to change their views and rejoin society, nothing is being forced on them or anything.

          We incarcerate people in jail when they’ve done something we’ve deemed wrong as a society and they are supposed to be changed and put back into society. How would this be any different? Why are going to eugenics lmfao, that’s a wild stretch dude.