this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
921 points (96.2% liked)

Lefty Memes

3759 readers
382 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!

Rules

0. Only post socialist memes That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such, as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries. That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry. The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals. We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals. Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
921
It's not a paradox (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Void_Sloth to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The paradox has never been a problem. This is just another way to frame it

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

It's like saying 'you might think this engine is broken since it can't run on the water that it is filled with, but if you simply remove the water and replace it with petrol suddenly the engine is fixed.'

The post seems to approach the paradox as if it meant to show that tolerance is inherently broken when in reality it just points out the possibility of problematic aspects if incorrectly applied, like in the above where it is obvious the engine itself was never broken. The paradox doesn't disappear, it simply doesn't apply to that particular application.

The main idea from OPs post is often ascribed to Yonatan Zunger as some huge revelation, but really this idea has been about for quite some time as its not exactly hard to come up with. For example, K. R. Popper 1945, and E. M. Forster 1922 both wrote about this.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The paradox has never been a problem for you.

Some people find the paradox of tolerance to be unhelpful because it seems like it's making an excuse for intolerance. And to be fair, the paradox phrasing doesn't provide hard boundaries - intentionally, I think, since the extent to which a statement is intolerant can vary - and intolerance in response to it should be commensurate. But for people who tend towards black and white thinking, it can be a problematic explanation.

The social contact version is much more clear cut: the metaphor of contract law is binary, and contains the image of the neutral "judge" which is helpful for black and white thinkers. A person either is it is not in breach of contract. It lacks nuance, which is good and bad.

Essentially, the core idea is the same: tolerance is the expected foundation; intolerance is abnormal and not ok. But whichever expression works for you is probably better.

Editing to add: the contract version, with its appeal to the Law and judges etc, is objective, which is helpful; the subjective nature of the paradox means that it can be weaponized - and it is, often. Tho to be fair the people who would weaponize it would probably weaponize either version - as it has been, multiple times in this very thread.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

For me? Yeah sure, but that's irrelevant and not the case of my comment.

What I meant is that the paradox doesn't mean that the concept of tolerance is toppled by the paradox existing.

But your exploration of the topic is spot-on. This post is an additional way to describe it and it seems to be more approachable to many, so great

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Right this is just adding another layer to the same concept.