So if someone says something racist or transphobic, I can kill them, right?
Or perhaps what constitutes a violation of the social contract and what constitutes an appropriate penalty is actually not simple.
To provide a concrete example; the Catholic church, as an organisation, doesn’t like trans people. What would tolerance being denied to the Catholic church look like in your world?
Something something due process, proportionality principle, etc. This isn’t exactly trivial, but that first rule does help in determining who is the one infringing. To start with, both starting shit as well as unjustified escalation are both punishable.
It doesn’t really help in determining who is doing the infringing either. There are places where saying “from the river to the sea” would be considered to be infringing on the social contract. And given that the social contract is a social construct, who’s to say they’re wrong?
We already have whole fields studying precisely this line sociology and more, analysis of power balances and stereotypes, and more. Again, it’s complicated, but it’s not happening in a vacuum, we know how to approach this
It’s not a paradox, it’s a social contract.
You don’t like Nazis? Tolerance granted.
You don’t like trans people? Tolerance denied.
It’s incredibly simple to understand, isn’t paradoxical and is easy to live by.
yes, and the legal framework can (and should) differ from the social contract
So if someone says something racist or transphobic, I can kill them, right?
Or perhaps what constitutes a violation of the social contract and what constitutes an appropriate penalty is actually not simple.
To provide a concrete example; the Catholic church, as an organisation, doesn’t like trans people. What would tolerance being denied to the Catholic church look like in your world?
Something something due process, proportionality principle, etc. This isn’t exactly trivial, but that first rule does help in determining who is the one infringing. To start with, both starting shit as well as unjustified escalation are both punishable.
It doesn’t really help in determining who is doing the infringing either. There are places where saying “from the river to the sea” would be considered to be infringing on the social contract. And given that the social contract is a social construct, who’s to say they’re wrong?
Again, who is harmed?
And when one side is clearly hypocritical, we can establish that that their contract is unbalanced and unfair and strike the unfair terms.
… like for example determining that people like Netanyahu don’t have the moral authority to punish others from doing what he himself does;
https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea
We already have whole fields studying precisely this line sociology and more, analysis of power balances and stereotypes, and more. Again, it’s complicated, but it’s not happening in a vacuum, we know how to approach this
This is why they are trying to make “establishment” a slur