983

Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kewjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Mariam-Webster: Tolerance - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

you're trying to change the definition of the word to justify intolerance based on societal norms. by your logic would you consider the Talibans oppression of women tolerant because the powers in charge say it's the societal standard?

[-] crackajack@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all. What was acceptable isn't anymore and vice versa. What is being debated is always a case by case basis. It's not hard to grasp. Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea. Restricting women's rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate. But criticising a government policy or religion. What exactly are being talked about in the first? What is being railed against the government and religion? Define what is being discussed first instead of going on abstracts.

[-] kewjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all

which is why tolerance isn't relative to social mores. lookup the word in a dictionary, you're fundamentally not understanding the concept.

Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea.

why do you keep grouping these concepts together? you can have intolerant free speech, thats why westboro are allowed to protest at funerals. the point is you don't have to tolerate that speech or platform it to a wider audience. In order to be a tolerant society the majority of society must denounce the intolerance.

Restricting women's rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate

so we have established that societies can be intolerant. just because a society says something is acceptable does not make it a tolerant society which is what this paradox applies to.

[-] crackajack@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago

I am not looking for dictionary definition. What I am asking is who or what defines what is considered intolerant? Many ideas were considered intolerant before but become accepted and vice versa.

[-] Dimpships@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Offensive vs Defensive. Think in terms of physical violence. Attacking someone else without legitimate provocation is offensive, ergo intolerant. Attacking someone who is attacking you is defensive, thus remains tolerant.

Pick any scenario and you can fit it into that construct with adequate context and nuance, there's two sides to every coin, you just need to look close enough to see which side is up.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
983 points (93.2% liked)

Political Memes

5579 readers
1440 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS