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.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I dont know who you are, and I’m not going to make any assumptions.

    but I will tell you.

    You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments. a certain group that wants to use tolerance against the tolerant and constantly try to debate for no other reason to get the goal posts shifted and their hatred and bigotry accepted as normal discourse.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments

      Is there?

      It it possible you just assume that anyone who makes such an argument must be a member of that group?

    • crackajack@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the thing, who defines hate speech? Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed. Now, depending on the country, being a critic of religions is a non-issue. But even doing so still is a grey area because criticising ideas is occasionally mixed with bigotry to the individual or group itself.

      Criticising government policies, exposing government corruption, could be charged as treason in many cases throughout history and even to this day. But many critics could either be recognised, demonised or ignored, depending on whether the population care enough about politics or not. Some population care enough and protests, some don’t because they are politically apathetic.

      That’s why the debate on free speech is never ending. It is always a case by case basis. And I think we should be comfortable with straddling the line.

      • kewjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        tolerance does not equal free speech, laws or societal norms.

        Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed.

        would you say this was a tolerant society? do you think if people tolerated this behavior it would no longer be acceptable?

        you’re free to say what you want but that doesn’t mean the statement is tolerant or intolerant, it depends on if you’re infringing on someone else’s right to existence.

        • crackajack@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tolerance and free speech are intrinsically linked. Historically, free speech has been based on the value of tolerance. But as time went on, because of recent history, maximum tolerance of free speech has led to hate speech and thus we know there is limit to it.

          Social mores are ever changing is what I’m saying. You mentioned that free speech is based on social contract, which is based on the underlying social mores and values. To us, what the past valued is not tolerant but for them it is. They think criticising religion is for the good of society, especially that religion has been the cornerstone of social order for many cultures for generations. But as time progressed, we learned better that religions are basically made up and is abused by those in power. And even within just fifteen to twenty years ago, we did not tolerate lgbt because that’s what society has just taught us. We did not question the prejudice against lgbt until recent years, because there is implicit consequence that going against the social norms would destabilise perceived order.

          That being said, tolerance and free speech are ever evolving with time, influenced by many factors, for better or for worse. The middle ground in my opinion is to continue debating. I was an absolutist on free speech until I learned what it leads to. But at the same time, restricting free speech and tolerance in general could lead to slippery slope with unpredictable consequence because it could be applied to just about anything. Who defines what is tolerable or hate speech? We know that governments and societies around the world impose certain restrictions based on arbitrary yet vague ideas whether legal or moral.

          • kewjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Merriam-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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              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 to be discussed first instead of going on abstract and then we can get back to discussion.

              • kewjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          would you say this was a tolerant society?

          I would say it was only intolerant of those who were intolerant of its norms.