this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
572 points (92.1% liked)

Political Memes

5477 readers
2722 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The paradox of intolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract, folks who demand us tolerate intolerance are violating the social contract and should be ignored.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'd argue it's not a paradox because it relies on two different definitions of tolerance.

  • Tolerance 1: Intolerant opinions should be allowed to exist without criminal punishment.
  • Tolerance 2: Everyone should treat intolerant opinions like other opinions for the purposes of platforming, how you feel about the speaker, etc.

Tolerance 1 is basically the kind of free speech principles adopted by most democratic societies and is probably necessary for such societies to remain free. Tolerance 2 is just silly. If you're in a forum specifically for debating deplorable opinions, fine. But there's no reason that a politics forum needs to cater to deplorable opinions.

[–] MetaCubed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry, tone doesn't come across well. I can't tell if you're trying to correct me on a point, because I agree with you.

[–] dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I read it as continuing your train of thought.

You do indeed agree.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Big aside:Maaaaaan, I catch myself doing this all the time. Posting what I think is :yes, and... But people don't realize that and think I'm disagreeing.. and then much confusion ensues.

Tldr, I gotta stop assuming shit and be better at setting context..

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I've just realized that my tendency to start comments irl and online with "Yeah..." might in part be a defense mechanism to avoid being misunderstood as disagreeing.

[–] MetaCubed@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago
[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

"Paradox" doesn't mean it's impossible to resolve. Mathematical paradoxes, such as Gabriel's Horn (a horn that takes up finite volume, yet you would not be able to paint it) or the Banach–Tarski paradox (where you can take a sphere, break it apart, and reassemble it into two spheres identical to the original), do have resolutions. They're just not obvious and can be hard to get your head around.

The original Greek word directly translates to "against belief", and basically means something unexpected. It doesn't mean it's logically contradictory, just that it might seem to.

So yes, the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox. It's not obvious to all people what the resolution is, but explaining it as a peace treaty rather than an unchangeable moral imperative tends to work.