You're viewing a single thread.
-
To everyone pearl clutching in response to this correct meme with one of the following phrases:
-
"That's how you create an echo chamber"
-
"paradox of intolerance doesn't say how to fight fascism"
-
"This is about silencing opposing thought"
I would like to take this moment to remind you that the paradox of intolerance isn't about exiling those who disagree on economic policy; it's about recognizing and directly opposing those who are trying to harm or disadvantage others and doing so in a meaningful way that will actually change the outcome. You can't debate Hitler out of doing a genocide, but you could have jailed him before he gained power.
Being too spineless to call out and fight intolerance enables fascism. The longer you live wrapped up in your civility politics, the overton window shifts further right, and it strengthens the fascist support. It happened in pre-WW2 Germany, and it's being repeated in dozens of countries worldwide. If you feel the urge to block me, go ahead...
...but know that this is your fault
Edit: spelling
-
The paradox of intolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract, folks who demand us tolerate intolerance are violating the social contract and should be ignored.
-
I'd argue it's not a paradox because it relies on two different definitions of tolerance.
- Tolerance 1: Intolerant opinions should be allowed to exist without criminal punishment.
- Tolerance 2: Everyone should treat intolerant opinions like other opinions for the purposes of platforming, how you feel about the speaker, etc.
Tolerance 1 is basically the kind of free speech principles adopted by most democratic societies and is probably necessary for such societies to remain free. Tolerance 2 is just silly. If you're in a forum specifically for debating deplorable opinions, fine. But there's no reason that a politics forum needs to cater to deplorable opinions.
-
Sorry, tone doesn't come across well. I can't tell if you're trying to correct me on a point, because I agree with you.
-
I read it as continuing your train of thought.
You do indeed agree.
-
Big aside:Maaaaaan, I catch myself doing this all the time. Posting what I think is :yes, and... But people don't realize that and think I'm disagreeing.. and then much confusion ensues.
Tldr, I gotta stop assuming shit and be better at setting context..
-
I've just realized that my tendency to start comments irl and online with "Yeah..." might in part be a defense mechanism to avoid being misunderstood as disagreeing.
-
-
Thank you!
-
-
-
"Paradox" doesn't mean it's impossible to resolve. Mathematical paradoxes, such as Gabriel's Horn (a horn that takes up finite volume, yet you would not be able to paint it) or the Banach–Tarski paradox (where you can take a sphere, break it apart, and reassemble it into two spheres identical to the original), do have resolutions. They're just not obvious and can be hard to get your head around.
The original Greek word directly translates to "against belief", and basically means something unexpected. It doesn't mean it's logically contradictory, just that it might seem to.
So yes, the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox. It's not obvious to all people what the resolution is, but explaining it as a peace treaty rather than an unchangeable moral imperative tends to work.
-
-
THANK YOU. In a Post about banning Germany's far-right Party AFD, some people wrote such delusional nonsense! It's unbelievable how far some People go to defend POS like the AFD.
-
I was recently reminded about the caveats that Germany has on the "no Nazi parties" rule. It's truly insane that it's essentially (this is hyperbole, but less than you'd think) "you can ban a party from running if they're Nazis... As long as they call themselves Nazis, and they've won an election, and the leader is called Hitler, and the leader went to art school. All other parties must be allowed to run"
-
Yeah it's quite a challenge to pass that threshold. But it is even more insane that there is a Party which passes this with flying colours and it is STILL a huge debate .__.
-
-
The people who came out against banning afd are the same ones who absolutely will not have the balls to do what you need to do to a nazi party you don't ban in time as well.
-
-
You all should see the shit going on in a post about Gisèle Pelicot where they are literally saying that the tiny fraction of women who commit sexual assault is an excuse for decrying the (absolutely understandably angry) women holding signs that say "NOT ALL MEN BUT ALWAYS A MAN".
I really fucking despise these false equivalencies.
-
I mean...it's literally not always a man. I get the point but that's a terrible slogan.
-
I agree but i also got to say that it depends on the goal. A sign like this is polarizing and will garner more attention to the topic, get people discussing etc..
-
-
-