• teamevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • MetaCubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • xenoclast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months 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.

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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.