Greetings,
I always had a problem with a site called reddit,yes lemmy is not reddit,and yesterday I have been permanently banned from it.Mostly
there are two reasons: anti-migrant statements, and speaking
against LGBTQ .I don’t want to do self-censorship.So is this site for me or should I find another one ?
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.
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.
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.
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.