• ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    This is what I’ve always said to people when it comes to things like respect

    Respect isn’t earned it’s the baseline. You give everyone a base level of respect as the default and their reaction is what determines your continued level of respect.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      It goes way, way deeper.

      It’s the tit-for-tat strategy that is applicable in a very wide range of situations. And animals follow it too. It is deeply ingrained in our biology.

      1. first time you interact with a new person, you assume they are following the same strategy, so you cooperate.

      2. if they don’t, then next time, you don’t either. But if they do, then you both continue cooperating until someone breaks the chain of trust.

      3. Once broken, the guilty party must make amends to restart.

      4. If broken, but neither party acknowledges guilt, a restart can be tried, but it will always be difficult due to distrust. So it works better if one party takes the blame, makes amends and restarts. (this is called ‘being the bigger person’).

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Upvote for mentioning tit-for-tat. There has been a lot of research on the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and as I recall the winning strategy determined by many experiments showed that over time, the ‘nice tit-for-tat’ strategy gets the highest score. It may lose out in an individual interaction, but over time, sticking to it is the best long-term strategy.

        However this does mean if one is a grifter and fully expects never to interact with the other (victim) party again… there’s less incentive to use such a strategy.

    • Slotos@feddit.nlEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Word “respect” means two different things. One of them can only be earned, another can only be given.

      What’s more, the part that can only be given is best described by trust. As in, the only way you can truly know if you can trust someone is to trust and find out.

      In this context, the respect that is given - a regard for the others - is a baseline trust in a reciprocal valuation. The respect that is earned is the collection of outcomes that feed into others’ trust risk assessment.

  • Kindness@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know why I am so helpless to resist putting energy into things that make me so unhappy, but I am. I will mention an example to explain why I feel this is inconsistent, and then condemn the ideals behind the paradox.

    By no means was India under a social contract with the colonialist British Raj. The British Raj was created using forceful means.

    India did not gain swaraj by professing violence when the British intimidated them. Nor when they British rode over them on horses. They gained swaraj through non-violent resistance. The successful party tolerated outrageous abuse without violence. And won their social contract.

    The Paradox of Tolerance suggests the only means of combating violent intolerance is through the same intolerance.

    I cannot agree. This is no different from saying, “A violent dog may only be stopped by a violent dog.” The people who follow such dogma devolve into organizations such as Hamas. Hamas is right to resist their intolerant neighbors. Certainly. Absolutely? Even through violence against civilians?

    One sentiment in this thread cut close to this issue, which I will paraphrase. “Anyone who passively supports intolerance is also intolerant.”

    Such an ideal supports violence, as each side believes they are justified in causing ever higher counts of casualties, “To remove the intolerant.”

    Violence for violence. Hate for hate. There is no end to intolerance, ever. Not through tolerance, not through discourse, not through genocide of the intolerant.

    The end of a violent dog is through careful restraint and gentle care, but there will always be violent dogs. Violence is a short term dirty bandage, followed by rot, followed by excision. Only care can help heal a wound.

    The paradox is almost right. The end to tolerance is… intolerance.

    Forgive me for intruding upon your morning, I wish you a pleasant day.

    • Void_Sloth@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      I’m glad you put the effort in, it’s the only way humanity can improve upon itself.

      I agree with what you’ve said and think this graphic agrees with you as well. I don’t believe it implies that violence should be used against the intolerant but rather that action should be taken to remedy intolerance.

      However I do see what you mean, as it’s phrasing doesn’t preclude violence either and could be further refined to highlight that point.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for demonstrating exactly how this sentiment is so much of a problem.

      Every marginalized populace has been accused of being an enemy of society. The paradox of intolerance says it is morally acceptable to oppress the enemies of society. The paradox says that oppressing these enemies is a moral imperative.

      The same moral principle that allows you to be intolerant of Trump voters justifies intolerance toward Biden voters, and anyone else that anyone doesn’t like.

      The paradox of intolerance was cribbed from Mein Kampf, and is the foundational principle of fascism.

      • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        You’re right, it all depends on who is in power, and what they define to be tolerable and what intolerance is in their view. That’s why it’s our moral obligation to tolerate the intolerant, however counterintuitive that may sound.