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.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok. With this as context:

    However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas

    Your acknowledgement that “Judaism” was once considered a “harmful idea” would seem to suggest you believe it is "perfectly legitimate to censor Judaism.

    How are we not in disagreement?

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d consider all religion to be built on a number of harmful ideas as they are figments of peoples imagination rather than objective reality and have been used for subjugation and control.

      And I’d argue that it is legitimate to censor those.

      You act like context and nuance are nothing more than thought experiments.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok. Same question, swapping homosexuality in place of judaism.

        Then, same question again, but remembering that “evolution” was once considered a harmful idea.

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Homosexuality harms people? Got any proof? Seems to me like homosexuality is harmed by religion.

          Evolution harms people? Willful ignorance isn’t being harmed.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are developing a philosophical model for people to adopt. That model calls for the censoring of things that people seem to be “harmful”.

            At times in our history, certain people have, indeed, considered homosexuality to be “harmful”.

            If these people follow the philosophy you describe, these people should censor homosexuality. Is that your intent? Or is there a slight flaw in the philosophical model you have described?

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Here is the definition used. Re-assess your understanding, and be specific. I can’t give you a cognizant answer unless we’re on the same page.

              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm

              In regards to homosexuality being considered harmful, there’s a big difference between people’s considerations and objective fact, that nuance is important.

              Harm to oneself born of one’s own intolerance is no ones issue but their own.

              Intolerance is self harm.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Ok. I have re-read your definition again. I can work with this.

                A group of people have observed a behavior that I may or may not have mentioned. This group of people has determined this behavior to be harmful. Should they censor it, or not? After you provide me with a definitive yes/no answer, I will tell you what that behavior was.

                I don’t know why you keep calling this “nuance”; it is not nuance. You are using that word incorrectly.

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

                  Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

                  The answers to these questions create contextual nuance.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The behavior does impact the group in an objective, verifiable way, and they have concluded that this impact is, indeed, harmful.

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        lmao 🤣 it’s gold that Lemmy saves the source of deleted comments. You really let your ego show there 🤣🤣🤣

        And you are oppressive, 100%. You would oppress the religious rights of billions of people if only you could. How you would impose this without mass death? How would you be different from Nazis?

          • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s why we need big brains like you to tell us what to think!! Ohhh if only I wasn’t but a lowly peon I might possibly be able to grasp that religious oppression isn’t. Yes yes.

            Funny how you deflect to calling people stupid rather then admit to the glaring holes in your position, sorry that’s not the right word. Sad, it’s sad not funny.

            Anyways it’s been fun measuring dicks, but I got you beat, and it looks like you don’t have a response.

            ✌️ Take care.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not here to tell you how to think, but don’t conflate your ignorance for other people’s knowledge.

              It must suck fighting imaginary enemies. I wish you the best of luck.

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not telling religious people how to think. Anyone can think how they like. It’s how they express themselves that’s the issue, but you knew that, right?

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just wanna point something out. You realize you are the oppressor right? Its not people having open discussions causing genocide, it’s people like yourself that think you have the right to oppose yourself over others. How do you expect to enforce these positions?