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.

  • Rivalarrival
    1·
    1 年前

    Ok. Same question, swapping homosexuality in place of judaism.

    Then, same question again, but remembering that “evolution” was once considered a harmful idea.

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 年前

      Homosexuality harms people? Got any proof? Seems to me like homosexuality is harmed by religion.

      Evolution harms people? Willful ignorance isn’t being harmed.

      • Rivalarrival
        22·
        1 年前

        You are developing a philosophical model for people to adopt. That model calls for the censoring of things that people seem to be “harmful”.

        At times in our history, certain people have, indeed, considered homosexuality to be “harmful”.

        If these people follow the philosophy you describe, these people should censor homosexuality. Is that your intent? Or is there a slight flaw in the philosophical model you have described?

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          4·
          1 年前

          Here is the definition used. Re-assess your understanding, and be specific. I can’t give you a cognizant answer unless we’re on the same page.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm

          In regards to homosexuality being considered harmful, there’s a big difference between people’s considerations and objective fact, that nuance is important.

          Harm to oneself born of one’s own intolerance is no ones issue but their own.

          Intolerance is self harm.

          • Rivalarrival
            2·
            1 年前

            Ok. I have re-read your definition again. I can work with this.

            A group of people have observed a behavior that I may or may not have mentioned. This group of people has determined this behavior to be harmful. Should they censor it, or not? After you provide me with a definitive yes/no answer, I will tell you what that behavior was.

            I don’t know why you keep calling this “nuance”; it is not nuance. You are using that word incorrectly.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 年前

              Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

              Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

              The answers to these questions create contextual nuance.

              • Rivalarrival
                13·
                1 年前

                The behavior does impact the group in an objective, verifiable way, and they have concluded that this impact is, indeed, harmful.

                  • Rivalarrival
                    14·
                    1 年前

                    You provided no evidence that “Judaism” causes objective harm, but you allowed for all religion to be censored. Your model is inconsistent.

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  1 年前

                  I’m going to risk assuming that your silence is due to the understanding that my logic is solid and that both functional and self inflicted harm born of bigotry are logically determinable with adequate contextual nuance.

                  If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.