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').

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.

I'd argue that dignity is the baseline but that respect is subjective.

Thanks, edited the post with the higher resolution image

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.

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.

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

If you violate the terms of an agreement you do not get the benefits of the agreement but that does not mean that you cannot be punished.

Laws and social contracts are different things. A social contract is often only enforced by the option of its withdrawal. Another example is covering shifts at work. If a colleague asks you, and you always refuse, you then can't complain when they refuse, when you ask them. The social contract is "You bail me out, and I'll bail you out in turn."

A lot of social contracts are implicit in our cultures. They take the form of "respect" or "courtesy". In fact, many are good examples of "enlightened self interest altruism". You do something altruistic, with the understanding that, if needed, others will do the same for you in the future. E.g. I support having a strong income safety net, financed by taxes (including my own). I never plan on relying on it, but support it because I hope something would catch me if I ended up in trouble. (I also support it because I consider it a good thing, but that's only my internal feelings on the matter)

Muslims are the only intolerant people in your society? Is it all Muslims or just the diehard fan boys?

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.