Paradox goes right the fuck away when you look at it in rthe context of social contract
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
807 points (96.4% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
2227 readers
610 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Its the lone exception to itself. Thats why it gets a fancy name "The paradox of tolerance". To abide by the intolerant is to validate them, thus contradicting your own tolerance of others.
Its circular logic, and the only solution is it carve out one exception, intolerance of those who are intolerant of others
To quote something I said to a transphobe asking about where they can safely question "transgenderism"
And before you go off with, "So much for being tolerant of my beliefs!".
Tolerance is about preventing harm being committed onto others. Tolerance can not condone intolerance being committed against others. Intolerance always leads to harm being committed against others. Tolerance, by definition, cannot be tolerant of intolerance without becoming intolerant itself.
For example:
Me allowing you to openly critize my friends in the trans community without stepping in and telling you, "You're a bigot and your behavior is not welcome here." will lead to your behavior harming them by implicit acceptance of your behavior.
So, with kindest regards.
#You're a bigot and your behavior is not welcome here.
Outlawed is wrong. Because we cannot trust those doing the outlawing and should be fucking clear. Do I even need to bring up the elephant in the room? You want to Outlaw disagreements with US foreign policy?
We hanged people at Nuremberg for incitement to genocide. Genocide is a crime with a very specific meaning. Yes, bad-faith actors can abuse a law prohibiting incitement to genocide, but the same can be done with any law.
Advocating for genocide is not free speech - it's attempted mass murder. Two people talking with each other and conspiring to kill someone else isn't protected speech - it's just conspiracy to commit murder. And if plotting to kill one person isn't protected, plotting to kill thousands or millions shouldn't be protected either. These people are plotting to commit genocide, and their intention is to use the power of the state as their murder weapon.
We need to prosecute attempted genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide as vigorously as we would any plot to kill any individual. But we have this weird blind spot where if someone plans to commit murder on a large scale using the state as the murder weapon, that somehow we don't recognize it as the same fundamental crime. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. Conspiracy to commit murder is conspiracy to commit murder. Whether the weapon is your own bare hands or the apparatus of a nation state. Advocating for genocide is nothing less than conspiracy to commit genocide.
Ah fuck, this makes sense. I was against the "outlaw" bit but (as a US citizen) I think I'm seeing things a little skewed. I cede its an important step to preventing this kind of thing (a little late lmao) :(
When I went to public school, we were taught this shit and it was drilled into us that it's very important to never forget any of it.
It's insane to see just how far our education system has fallen. American kids know nothing about any of this.
You say that as our politicians at this you say that as our politicians at this very moment are claiming that those opposing genocide are advocating for genocide.
I disagree with this take. The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren't killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions. They actually carried out a genocide, that's what they were guilty of.
I actually disagree with this relatively new movement that pushes for hate speech laws because they're something that's inherently arbitrary and subjective, and they can and will be weaponized to serve nefarious agendas. Principles like freedom of speech MUST be applied universally and fairly in order for them to mean anything. Freedom of speech exists to protect offensive, controversial, and unpopular opinions against censorship because what can be considered any of those things can change at any time.
For example, 60 years ago being racial equality was viewed as seemed very controversial and unpopular, but today? The opposite. However, in 60 years, public opinion on these views could flip again. If we pass laws that outlaw racist views as hateful, then it's very possible that these laws could be changed at any point in the future to outlaw anti-racist views as hateful. I don't want to ever live in a society where I'm being legally punished for arguing against segregation. Establishing such precedents is very dangerous and history has shown us that the consequences of these laws aren't always what they were intended.
I think the US freedom of speech laws as they are federally defined are the golden standard. They take into account all the reasonable exceptions, while maintaining a universally applied standard for everyone. If any individual turned their words into actions or clearly had the intent to take action then they'll be persecuted for their actions. That's the way it should be.
You should look into The Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)
The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren’t killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions.
You are simply wrong in this case. We hanged Nazi propagandists, as we recognized that they were committing conspiracy to commit genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher
Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years.[72] In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher's articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews. They further argued that he kept up his antisemitic propaganda even after he was aware that Jews were being slaughtered.[73]
Streicher was acquitted of crimes against peace, but found guilty of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to death on 1 October 1946.
But these are two different things though. In this case Streicher was taking action. He was directly working for the Nazi party, and his job was to convince people that the Nazi crimes were not only okay, but they should be celebrated and expanded. His actions actively aided the genocide, he was a part of the Nazi machine. That's not a private citizen with personal opinions and beliefs.
That's very a big difference between him and some modern neo nazi who spends all day picking his nose, scratching his ass, and posting on 8chan about the world is controlled by the "joos". As long dickheads like this keep their vile views to themselves, then I don't think they should be legally persecuted simply for holding vile opinions. However, the moment their words turn into actions or the clear intention to implement neo nazi bullshit, then that's when they should get persecuted by the law.
What you're saying here directly contradicts your previous comment.
Charlie Kirk gave material support (a significant amount, to the point where Trump himself admitted he wouldn't have won without him) to fascists. I think he himself would have balked at you suggesting that he wasn't active in getting the current regime to where it is.
And if the Trump administration were exterminating people in death camps and had been convicted in international criminal court then you would have a point.
As it is the administration is obviously ignoring its own laws and being disgusting with racial profiling when deporting immigrants in the country illegally, and grabbing legal immigrants and citizens through this overzealousness and rule/law breaking.
The US is not committing a holocaust against Hispanics. It is not committing one against the LGBTQ community either. Even if you believe that the US is capable of committing one here and that it is coming, it is not happening yet and so Charlie Kirk cannot be an execution for propaganda supporting mass murder/genocide that has already taken place.
Execution for crimes that will be committed in the future is execution for thought crime or execution for free speech.
Ah OK, so we have to let them systematically murder countless people before we can do anything. Got it.
It's not like we should ever learn from history, and try to do things differently this time.
And by the way, I'm not talking about extrajudicial killing. We were talking about Nazi trials.
Kirk was directly tied into the Trump administration. He himself sent busloads of followers to help storm the capital. Kirk's jobs was to convince people that the genocidal plans of the Christian Nationalists are OK and should be celebrated and expanded. By the time you get to the level of power and influence of Kirk, you're not really a private citizen anymore. He was instrumental in getting Trump elected. Yes, he doesn't have a formal position in the government, but most of the charges against Streicher were for things that had nothing to do with the little bit of power he briefly had.
load more comments
(2 replies)
In this day and age, someone will lose their job over posting this on their Facebook while the nazis get to roam free
Which is why we should not support outlawing views as in the post. Everything else yes, illegalizing no, even in good times we should think that we can't trust those doing the outawing.
Germany felt the need to do it after WW2, and they thrived for ~80 years since.
In Germany it is in effect illegal to protest Israel and they unreservedly support them while they do the same thing to the Palestinians that were done to the victims of the Nazis. Gaza is literally a large ghetto Ala Warsaw. Starvation and all.
And Germany is a much smaller less diverse country than the United States, which has led to more divisive Politics as groups are played off of each other here.
I should not need to tell you that none of our politicians could be trusted with this power, not the least our current government. The most dishonest ever.
I just think it's wrong to disregard the entire concept when it has proven, in the real world, to work better than the alternative.
It absolutely has not been proven, I just gave you proof that it does not work. They are literally supporting fascists pursuing a final solution against their others as we speak and have been that entire 70 years. They also are on the cusp of losing the country to their far right back by Russia and now the US that will try to fix elections so they never leave power. That is not working, that is failing. On both counts.
They are literally supporting fascists pursuing a final solution against their others as we speak and have been that entire 70 years.
Not really. Maybe a marginal amount of them hiding in the shadows, but they've only become emboldened recently. Germany thrived for decades while having laws against flying flags with swastikas on them.
And I never said it was a perfect solution, just that it's better than the alternative. Which is to do nothing and allow the fascists to infect the politics of your nation.
view more: next ›