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.

  • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
    146·
    1 year ago

    I see this pretty often, but I see a problem with it. Bad actors are always going to exist. I assume that this situation would require a law that makes intolerance illegal. Which I am all for.

    But in the US we are already seeing people say that LGBTQ culture is being “forced” on them. Now, I know that is insane, and I know that you know that is insane. But, those people absolutely believe that they are being “forced” to acknowledge a thing that they don’t believe in.

    I don’t think it’s too crazy for us to assume that they would try to use the same legislation that was supposed to protect us from them, to destroy peoples lives. They would say that a way of life that they don’t agree with is being forced on them, and their culture is being destroyed. Lots of conservatives would follow suit.

    What protections would need to be put in place to stop that from happening?

    • ForgetReddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
      114·
      1 year ago

      Idk if this is arguing for a law to be passed. It’s telling people “don’t let Nazis/fascists get away with it unscathed”. There’s no “I disagree but it’s ok to give them a platform” allowed- tell them to fuck off.

      • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
        34·
        1 year ago

        But to strip them of a platform. Changes have to be made to the first amendment. There is absolutely no way to completely de-platform someone. There’s tv, radio, podcasts, social media, blogs, discord, and the list goes on and on.

        I feel like I need to say this every time. I too do not like Nazis or fascists. I’m just pointing out that with essentially becoming a different kind of fascist and adopting a “might makes right” culture of our own. That cartoon only tells part of the story.

    • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.

      LGBTQ acceptance does not do these things, no matter how much right-wing snowflakes claim it does otherwise in bad faith.

      • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        1 year ago

        I know that LGBTQ acceptance doesn’t do anything bad. But, just as sure as you and I are that LGBTQ people are great people. The conservatives are that sure that they are a plague on mankind. Conservatives truly believe that their kids are in danger.

        However, to ban the intolerant makes you intolerant. You would be persecuting the intolerant. I would argue that action would make you more intolerant than the intolerant people you are persecuting.

        The only option is to teach our kids to be better, and expose them to as many different kinds of people in society as possible. While reinforcing that no matter a person’s position in life. There are good and bad people.

        • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          1 year ago

          However, to ban the intolerant makes you intolerant. You would be persecuting the intolerant. I would argue that action would make you more intolerant than the intolerant people you are persecuting.

          This is the Enlightened Centrist nonsense that this post is addressing.

          • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
            31·
            1 year ago

            So, what you just typed there is called an ad hominem fallacy. It’s where you assault my character to try and make me seem less credible while contributing nothing to the discussion.

            In other words. Even if I were a centrist. If I’m correct. I’m still correct.

            • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              No, your character is not being assaulted, the already-addressed-by-the-post argument you’re presenting is. You’re simply regurgitating the Paradox of Tolerance again.

              • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                1 year ago

                This post literally is the Paradox of Tolerance. I simply pointed out that every time I see this posted. They always stop at “the paradox is that intolerance can’t be tolerated”. But no solutions past that are given.

                So, I was exploring what comes after we know that intolerance can’t be tolerated. I commented with 2 separate outcomes that I could think of, and both of them are deeply flawed. You latched on to one of them.

    • cerevant@lemm.eeEnglish
      54·
      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
        5·
        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
          2·
          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.