- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
I understeand the whole idea and im always up to point and laugh at cringe wanna be fascist, the problem is that the term intollerance is not used with nuance, as soon as people receive critiscism ( be it constructive or not) is easy to just shout biggot or intolerance, whereas in that wouldnt really be the case.
Another problem would be what the stablishment considers intollerance or bigotry, like as easelly as there are protected groups that cant be criticed without coming of hatefull thowards that group, that could be applied the same way to the elite class, gobernment and rich people, and at least in my country it was like that untill relatively recently, (about 2 decades ago), and that is just straight up censorship and if the gobernment wanted they could jaill you (if they didnt assasinate you privately), and i understeand its simmilar in some countries to this day, without pointing at the most obvious ones or failed nations that are in constant internal violent conflicts, one example would be India for what i heard.
My point is that this type of rethoric shouldnt be thrown around as lightly as it is, since it sounds to me as more of a justification for censorship rather than a genuenly interesting thought experiment, specially since the ones that are normally used as an easy to tear down argument are the nazis, which i mean fuck them and everything they say but is this paradox really only aplicable to them?
I agree and im a free speech absolutist type. It really comes down to what is allowed. The top panel is huge as he says respect. No one has to respect anyones ideas but they can allow them to have them and relate them in private and open public forums. The right to free speech does not allow someone to enter the whitehouse to make the speech there. It just means that if they are otherwise not messing with people or breaking the law they can say or write what they want. but you can’t write on someone elses private wall or not be kicked out of an establishment for your speech. You don’t vote them into office out of tolerance or wanting to hear from both/all sides. Your own free speech rights allow you to ridicule away or whatever you want.
Its not even to that extreme imo, for example if im saying “we should kill all x people” that is just instigation on mass murder, and that is illegal, and i dont know if its actually punishable by law but saying that in a public space will definetly put you on a watch list. I meant that this is used as a solution for a problem that is already solved with laws and regulations on political speech, and comes up like rallying against “everyone who disagrees with me is a biggot since i whant to give everyone ice cream and if you disagree then you whant to give everyone AIDS” when there are more nuanced takes like people being lactose intolerant, other not liking ice cream and others having diabetes or simply whanting to reduce their sugar/fats consumption and would rather have an orange. And grouping them with the “whanting to give AIDS to everyone” crowd is just a very childish way to handle this type of isues.
And simply put speech is a conversation and intolerance as they display it. IE nazi philosophy. Should be struck down in the converastion. If a majority of a democracy is ok with the philosophy the problem is not free speech.