this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
147 points (85.5% liked)

Cool Guides

326 readers
1 users here now

Picture based reference guides for anything and everything. If it seems like something someone might print, physically post, and reference then it is a good link for this sub. Remember: Infographics are learning tools, guides are reference tools. Sometimes it's grey.

/r/coolguides mods just let me know if you need access here, just wanted to keep the place available for you

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6541859

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Tolerance is a social contract, if you break the contract, you are no longer covered by it.

[–] JungleJim@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (49 children)

The paradox is false. Society depends on the social contract; You tolerate me and I'll tolerate you and nobody hits each other with fists/clubs/spears/swords/bullets. We all get to try to do our best to thrive. If an entity tries to take away that right from somebody, they have broken the contract. Contracts have consequences. Intolerance isn't tolerated because it breaks the contract. If the contract is broken we can't have society. People who want a society should respect the contract and not tolerate intolerance. No paradox, just a logical process.

load more comments (49 replies)
[–] MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I see this pretty often, but I see a problem with it. Bad actors are always going to exist. I assume that this situation would require a law that makes intolerance illegal. Which I am all for.

But in the US we are already seeing people say that LGBTQ culture is being “forced” on them. Now, I know that is insane, and I know that you know that is insane. But, those people absolutely believe that they are being “forced” to acknowledge a thing that they don’t believe in.

I don’t think it’s too crazy for us to assume that they would try to use the same legislation that was supposed to protect us from them, to destroy peoples lives. They would say that a way of life that they don’t agree with is being forced on them, and their culture is being destroyed. Lots of conservatives would follow suit.

What protections would need to be put in place to stop that from happening?

[–] ForgetReddit@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk if this is arguing for a law to be passed. It’s telling people “don’t let Nazis/fascists get away with it unscathed”. There’s no “I disagree but it’s ok to give them a platform” allowed- tell them to fuck off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.

LGBTQ acceptance does not do these things, no matter how much right-wing snowflakes claim it does otherwise in bad faith.

[–] MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I know that LGBTQ acceptance doesn’t do anything bad. But, just as sure as you and I are that LGBTQ people are great people. The conservatives are that sure that they are a plague on mankind. Conservatives truly believe that their kids are in danger.

However, to ban the intolerant makes you intolerant. You would be persecuting the intolerant. I would argue that action would make you more intolerant than the intolerant people you are persecuting.

The only option is to teach our kids to be better, and expose them to as many different kinds of people in society as possible. While reinforcing that no matter a person’s position in life. There are good and bad people.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

If force doesn't mean at gun point they can fuck off.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] devz0r@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This comic is always posted and it always neglects to include the full context of Popper’s quote, which disagrees with the comic:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

[–] Buelldozer 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with this, as always, is that generalizing tolerance and intolerance breaks down as soon as you start putting issues to it.

Should we tolerate those who are themselves intolerant? The argument goes that we shouldn't and it uses an extreme example, Nazi-ism, as support. Fair enough, we shouldn't tolerate those who seek harm against others because of immutable characteristics.

So what about people who are intolerant of others in the case of MAP? Are we supposed to be tolerant of MAP folks and their actions because intolerance of them makes us the baddies? Should we punch the anti-pedophile?

So maybe this Paradox of Tolerance issue is a bit more nuanced than just "Nazi's bad."

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe we need more clarity as to what is meant by "intolerant". I would consider myself an antipedophile, but I would not support the death penalty for pedophilia. I believe in having consequences for wrongdoing without the need for violence against or death of pedophiles as a class. But if there were a group of vigilantes or even government agencies that were actively killing pedophiles, I would say that could not be tolerated. So, maybe we can say "Violent intolerance cannot be tolerated"?

The concept references the law, but it's worth noting that even anarchist societies have ways of horizontally dealing with intolerance. Diffuse sanctions, for example.

[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

is this a guide? its just a paragraph with graphics...

load more comments
view more: next ›