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.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    1 year ago

    Its not a paradox.

    Tolerance is a social contract.

    If you refuse to be part of the social contract, then you do not receive its protection.

    it is not paradoxical to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract to harm individuals or society. Being violently intolerant against them is nothing but acting in the defense of our own personhood, the personhood of our fellows, and the good of our society.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        I dont know who you are, and I’m not going to make any assumptions.

        but I will tell you.

        You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments. a certain group that wants to use tolerance against the tolerant and constantly try to debate for no other reason to get the goal posts shifted and their hatred and bigotry accepted as normal discourse.

          • kewjo@lemmy.world
            5·
            1 year ago

            tolerance does not equal free speech, laws or societal norms.

            Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed.

            would you say this was a tolerant society? do you think if people tolerated this behavior it would no longer be acceptable?

            you’re free to say what you want but that doesn’t mean the statement is tolerant or intolerant, it depends on if you’re infringing on someone else’s right to existence.

              • kewjo@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                Merriam-Webster: Tolerance - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own

                you’re trying to change the definition of the word to justify intolerance based on societal norms. by your logic would you consider the Talibans oppression of women tolerant because the powers in charge say it’s the societal standard?

                  • kewjo@lemmy.world
                    2·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all

                    which is why tolerance isn’t relative to social mores. lookup the word in a dictionary, you’re fundamentally not understanding the concept.

                    Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea.

                    why do you keep grouping these concepts together? you can have intolerant free speech, thats why westboro are allowed to protest at funerals. the point is you don’t have to tolerate that speech or platform it to a wider audience. In order to be a tolerant society the majority of society must denounce the intolerance.

                    Restricting women’s rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate

                    so we have established that societies can be intolerant. just because a society says something is acceptable does not make it a tolerant society which is what this paradox applies to.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, it’s only really a paradox of you try to define “tolerance” as a completely unqualified imperative. Tolerance of what?

      Semantically speaking, “Are you in favor of tolerance?” Does not express a proposition, while “Do you tolerate everything?” without additional qualification is descriptively negative. No paradox at all.