this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
119 points (69.6% liked)
Linux
54005 readers
1399 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The "paradox of tolerance" is a concept I love to bring up time and time again.
No tolerance for the intolerant, lest intolerants take over tolerant spaces and turn them intolerant.
Social contract not a moral imperative.
Or seen as a repeated prisoners dilemma, play tit-for-tat, or maybe (N*tit)-for-tat (where N gives a 'punitive' damages expectation for breching the accepted norms).
Quite a lot of lefties don't like thinking about what is "rational" though because "people aren't cognitively rational" so rationality based social equilibia can obviously never have any relevance.
Can you elaborate on the last part of your comment? I'm not sure I fully understand, though it sounds like we mostly agree.
I'm not sure why you threw in that digression about political leaning at the end, though. It makes your last statement pretty vague.
I don't see it as a paradox, but as rational. But there are people who I think do hold tolerance as some sort of moral compulsion, and get offended by the notion that it might just emerge from people figuring out how and why to cooperate, without any high and mighty guiding morality.
These people will also object to using rational models to understand/describe human behaviours, because they can point to many examples of people acting irrationally. Many of these examples are psychology lab "experiments" so are irrelevant to the real world. But plenty of real examples of things like loss aversion and risk (mis)percepion, sunk costs, time-inconsistent decisions and so on where individuals clearly do behave "irrationally".
I often come across people who believe that this undermines anything any "rational model" has to say. And so I do try to use such reasoning with those people, or even challenge those observations with examples where collective rationality does seem to emerge as a social (not individual) phenomenon, then I'll be derided as some sort of neo-conservative capitalist fascist or whatever.
So I find that it's generally good practice to chuck in some insult about one type of political zealot or other every so often, so as to quickly establish where I stand. I'd rather be vague than waste my breath with zealots.