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.

  • 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.

      • Dimpships@feddit.uk
        1·
        1 year ago

        Offensive vs Defensive. Think in terms of physical violence. Attacking someone else without legitimate provocation is offensive, ergo intolerant. Attacking someone who is attacking you is defensive, thus remains tolerant.

        Pick any scenario and you can fit it into that construct with adequate context and nuance, there’s two sides to every coin, you just need to look close enough to see which side is up.