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
      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.