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.

  • cerevant@lemm.eeEnglish
    55·
    1 year ago

    To restrict someone’s freedom, there needs to be demonstrable harm. “I don’t like it” isn’t harm. “My god doesn’t like it” isn’t harm.

    • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

      I agree with what you’re saying, but to certain people. The fact that anyone exists that doesn’t believe in their way of life is harmful. After all, remember, the people I’m referring to believe that just LGBTQ people existing it is harmful to the “children”. Before conservatives said that about LGBTQ it was black people are harmful.

      I just want to reiterate. These are not my feelings. But laws in the US are open to interpretation. I know that the LGBTQ community is not only relatively harmless, and I only use “relatively” because bad actors exist everywhere. But, as a neglected teenager. It was a gay man that came to my rescue and asked nothing in return but my friendship. Dude was a fucking saint. I know first hand how important the LGBTQ community is.

      But having tried to engage with conservatives on these issues. I can tell you that they absolutely believe the LGBTQ community is harming kids. Because laws are open to interpretation. This would leave a way for conservatives to use a law like that against people that it was designed to help.

      • cerevant@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        What I’m saying is that if the hypothetical anti intolerance law had an objective definition of harm that did not include religious criteria (which is prohibited by the 1st amendment anyway) then it wouldn’t backfire like you suggest.

        • Darthjaffacake@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I think that requires an amount of airtightness that it couldn’t reasonably have, causing harm is always going to be nebulous. Shit even causing the Jan 6th riots is argued away with the idea that it wasn’t directed caused even though it’s about as direct as possible

        • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          But I’m saying that a law couldn’t be objective enough to keep out abuse in the US. That’s not how laws work. You can’t think of every eventuality, because humans are incredibly creative. So, laws have to have very broad definitions, and a sentence range. Because, context matters.

          Then, you also have a problem, where you know you’re right, and I agree with you. But the conservatives also think they are right. This anti-LGBTQ thing isn’t just for laughs. These people genuinely believe their kids are in danger.

          So, you’d be telling a group of people that their fears are invalid, and they just need to trust you or suffer. Now I know that seems like an easy choice to you and I because we know the truth. But, conservatives also think they know the truth.

          So, what would you do if someone told you that everything you thought was wrong to just trust them, because your kids are just fine? Would you trust them?

    • almar_quigley@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      I don’t disagree with you at all but I think this is only possible in an atheistic society. I don’t have a lot of hope for that in my lifetime unfortunately.

      • cerevant@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        The US has an atheist government - it is right there in the first amendment - we just allowed the theists to stack the Supreme Court with other theists.