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
    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.

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

          That’s not what I asked. Two questions, two answers. I agree they believe they are harmed.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You provided no evidence that “Judaism” causes objective harm, but you allowed for all religion to be censored. Your model is inconsistent.

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

              If you want to stop being disingenuous we can continue our discussion, but I assume your response is born of belligerence. I wish you the best of luck.

              If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.

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

                I reject the premise of your question that harm can possibly be “objective”, so my answer would be “no. The harm is subjective”. Applying your model, “subjective” harm does not qualify for censorship, but again, I reject your premise that harm can ever be considered objective fact. Your model thus suggests that nothing should be censored, but you have indicated that Judaism is one objectively harmful issue that should be censored.

                So, I want to know what “objective” harm you believe Judaism causes.

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

                  You didn’t answer the questions. Two questions, two answers.

                  If you want to keep being intellectually disingenuous and dodging like you play dodgeball, I’ll just accept you can’t without accepting that I was able to determine you were making a disingenuous attempt to make me say something that could be construed as ‘censoring all religion’.

                  But my logic is solid and the questions remain posed. You showed your hand that the answer was Nazi’s referring to Judaism so I’ll finish the job for you.

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

                  The projection of a feeling.

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

                  Yes.

                  Therefore their harm is self inflicted through bigotry. And you agree with me.

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

                    I have not accepted any claim that harm can ever be considered objective. We are not at all in agreement, but we have narrowed down the point of contention.

                    Even certain behaviors that out modern society does call for censorship of - such as calling for violence to a person or group - are not “objectively” harmful, but subject to public opinion. Death threats would generally be considered worthy of censorship, but death threats to Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11 didn’t seem harmful. Are death threats and objective harm to be censored, or are they subjective, as I have just demonstrated?

                    So again, I would like some examples of what you mean by “objective” harm, because I currently cannot conceive of any behavior that could be unequivocally, objectively harmful.

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

          I’m going to risk assuming that your silence is due to the understanding that my logic is solid and that both functional and self inflicted harm born of bigotry are logically determinable with adequate contextual nuance.

          If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.