• FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.

      EDIT: I guess I should add that in the context of this thread, “be tolerant” is a cultural rule that has developed over the recent past, and thus if you aren’t tolerant there are social repercussions (and in countries with hate speech laws, even legal repercussions) as that is the current rule.