this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2022
4 points (70.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43849 readers
835 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The tolerance paradox has been discussed throughout history. Basically the conclusion is, you cannot tolerate intolerance. Intolerance is the one thing that only deserves intolerance.
Seen this image here being slapped left and right.
It's hard to call it a paradox (at least the way it's being used in this context) when you're implying a definitive answer.
Philosophically, I don't think Popper was saying we should be intolerant to intolerance per se, but the fact that by doing so we end up in a conondrum of wheter we, as defenders of tolerance, are intolerant.
Sure, but he definitely concludes that intolerating intolerance is the way to go, despite the circular and self-referential nature of the issue. Like everything in life, there are exceptions that must be had to make things work, and tolerant people not tolerating intolerance is one of those necessary exceptions. There are plenty of really obvious things that humanity should not be tolerating, like rape, pedophilia, genocide, etc. If your argument is that just because you're intolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, that means you're a hypocrite and therefore no better than the racists, sexists, and homophobes themselves, that is a thoroughly invalid argument.
You cant fight intolerance with intolerance. That will cause more conflict and more problems.
Hard disagree. Actually, really hard disagree on all fronts. I really recommend actually reading what Karl Popper and others has to say on this, they've broken this issue down better than I can hope to in a Lemmy comment.
Then I disagree with you and Karl Popper.