Paradox of tolerance
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
From what I've seen people use this as an argument for censorship. Personally I believe in proportional responses.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad. Censorship against speech regarding the government should be protected. However it's perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas, and many countries censor hate speech. We censor people's ability to physically and emotionally harm others. We censor threats. Censorship isn't inherently bad, and is already used functionally everywhere, just ask ChatGPT.
I do however think censorship can be dangerous. I think the censorship we see in public forums (including lemmy) already treads on the toes of legitimate intellectual conversation of objective views on hate speech and offensive language. Tone policing is incredibly intellectually disingenuous, but is widespread because feelings trump literacy. I think the censorship of individual words is supremely dangerous because it also bans or limits the conversation around those words, their usage, etymology, and understanding their use. Comprehension of offensive things is just as valuable as understanding anything else, if not more so should you wish to fight them, but censorship of offensive things without context destroys the capacity for understanding to permeate the social consciousness.
However it's perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas,
What is an isn't a harmful idea changes drastically between generations. This would have been used to censor information about homosexuality before 1995 or so. "Harmful" as modernly defined is a subjective standard.
No it's not. Harm has a definition.
Not one that remains objective over time. In 1820 Atheism, and Homosexuality would be considered harmful; in 1920 Racial equality would have been considered harmful, as would Unionization. Imagine the things we consider harmful today that our descendants in 2120 will consider us barbaric for.
It's in the dictionary. Hasn't changed in a few hundred years.
Sodomy was once considered harm. Masturbation was once deemed to be "self abuse". Some people consider vaccination and masks to be harmful. Judaism was seen as harmful by interwar Germans.
The dictionary defines the word; it does not determine whether a particular act can be described by that word. Harm is subjective, and changes.
Yes, congratulations, you figured out what the other poster didn't. Shame you think you're disagreeing with me, but I'll take your unintended agreeance even if you don't have the comprehension to understand why. Nuance, only for the literate.
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?
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.
: to damage or injure physically or mentally : to cause harm
You don't think the definition of mental harm has changed over the last few hundred years?
Read the rest of the page, context is included.
The things that cause harm change, the definition of harm is constant, not all harm is equal.
Having read the rest of the thread I would like you to answer @[email protected] 's questions.
@[email protected], got caught up on two simple questions and lost their composure.
I disagree. He asked a question that gets to the heart of the question, given that the definition of what is "harmful" has changed over the years and will continue to change into the future; does OP support the censorship of the things it would have censored and the things it may censor in the future? It's a valid question and it core to the disagreement.
If OP doesn't care about the dangers of censorship that's fine, but they shouldn't act like you can allow censorship without the problems it has historically and will in the future cause.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad, and I especially hate the idea that people think they have the authority to restrict what others learn about.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad
Then go support your local Nazi's right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
There's a reason I clarified that censorship of words and concepts for education is dangerous, censoring people using those concepts to cause harm is not.
Or did you stop reading after the first sentence?
Dude... If you don't understand that my comment is responding to your post in its entirety, that ain't my problem.
Then go support your local Nazi's right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
Even people I find abhorrent have rights. That's kind of how it works. Like your opinion is drastically harmful to my way of life, and I think people like yourself have a misguided concept of what's actually in your control, but I support your right to express yourself.
Also there's a paradox in your thinking. You said speech against governments should be protected. So if we ban speaking about X, that's government action. Do we not now have a right to talk about X due to the fact that it's being censored by a governing force? If not how do you rectify that against your belief speech against governments should be protected.
You said speech against governments should be protected.
Yes
So if we ban speaking about X, that's government action.
You shouldn't ban speaking about anything. This is where you missed the point.
Think of it like this. It should be illegal to be a Nazi. It should be legal to discuss Naziism.
It should be illegal to use racial epithets directed at a person in hate, but it should be legal to say and talk about those words.
It's called contextual nuance, and until you have a solid grasp of it you won't be able to make accurate determinations.
Being pronazi in your system would be speaking against the government.
No, being pro nazi is not against the government, it's against the rights of other people. You really are thick.
Nope, in your system the government has banned Nazism which means nazis are now able to oppose that action, and promote their beliefs in opposition of the government.
You really are thick.
Dude you're smart enough to see the holes in your position, I'm not the one being thick here, but you do you.
Elaborate, please.
To what end? What are you looking to learn?
Understand.
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship.
Can you elaborate on that, please?
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship
The comment you responded to was an observation not an argument.
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
I'm sorry man but I really don't have the patiences to write a thesis about this especially since I don't think what I wrote is deep, or complicated to understand. There are literally people responding to my initial comment justifying censoring religion. You can also search Lemmy for "paradox of tolerance" and you will find countless examples of what I'm talking about if you are genuinely interested.