this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
688 points (96.2% liked)

Cool Guides

6615 readers
131 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 145 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There's a straightforward way to resolve the paradox of tolerance, IMO. Treat tolerance as a social contract. An intolerant person has explicitly rejected the contract.

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago

Fully agree. Being tolerant is part of the social contract. If you break the rules then why should we play the same game.

[–] 5765313496@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I agree. Straightforward and simple. But I don't think I know how to simply explain what a social contract is to someone. Does anyone have a good example of a social contract?

[–] Bougie_Birdie@piefed.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Choose to fit your audience:

  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

  • If you deny my right to exist, you forfeit yours

  • Fuck around and find out

  • Talk shit, get hit

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You forgot one:

  • Act only according to maxims which you would have be universal

In other words, don't do something that you would be upset if someone else did.

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This. I'm not sure why others are arguing your point. I guess they don't actually understand what you're saying?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

Happens all the time to be honest

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This doesn't work in everybody. There's a lot of things I like, and I would want everybody to do, that I recognize most rational people would never want.

If I followed this advice I would bother almost everybody I interact with.

The majority set the vibe. It's ugly, but there it is. If I reject this it will only cause friction in my life. So for people like me, a better quote is:

Act only according to maxims which those affected would have be universal

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perhaps. But the same would apply to the other golden rule. It's not "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

If you do what you feel is right, it doesn't matter if people disagree with you. You'd at least be ideologically consistent, not a hypocrite.

If being a good person requires pleasing people, there would be no good people in the world. "People" are impossible to please because it's an abstract category representing a generalized collective. You'll never please them all and that's okay.

Do what you believe is right, and sleep well at night knowing you tried your best.

If I remember correctly, Kant goes into detail about how others would be affected and how that influences the categorical imperative. I forget exactly what he says about it though

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If your definition is "do what you believe is right" it absolutely needs to be paired with a requirement to put effort into figuring out what actually is right.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well when you figure that part out let me know, I've been trying my whole life and so far everything I've come up with is bound to still piss someone off...

If your definition of right and wrong is based on what gains approval from others then you're in a very dangerous predicament and I hope to the gods I don't believe in that you're surrounded by decent people.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A lot of Republicans and Nazis (but I repeat myself) believed they do what's right as a result of propaganda. What's right is about impact, not approval.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 22 hours ago

That's what I mean, they get their sense of "right" and "wrong" from what others around them tell them and what they've internalized their whole lives.

They don't put any rational thought into it, or empathy. They don't think for themselves about it. If they were to stop and think about things for themselves they might have a moment where they realize "this is wrong," but they don't because they base their judgments on their deeply internalized patterns that were socially conditioned from a very young age.

If you think about the impact your choices will have and make your decisions based on what you think will have the best impact, then that means you're thinking for yourself and not basing it on the perceptions of others.

In other words, it doesn't contradict the categorical imperative.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

An agreement made to be able to share each other's space

Mutual assurances of safety in exchange for mutual acceptance of limits in regards to your shared spaces

If you break one of these agreements to others then you lose the privileges that they offered you

By demanding the benefits of a society you commit to honoring what it requires of you to maintain it

Look at stuff like the rules applied by hikers in the wilderness. "leave no trace" and sharing resources. Then you filter out a ton of the complexities of cities to show the basics of what it is.