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.

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    9·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        6·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            4·
            1 year ago

            : 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?

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              6·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                3·
                1 year ago

                Having read the rest of the thread I would like you to answer @Rivalarrival@infosec.pub 's questions.

                • Dimpships@feddit.uk
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  @Rivalarrival@infosec.pub, got caught up on two simple questions and lost their composure.

                  • mwguy@infosec.pub
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    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.