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.

  • adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s true. But it also requires that both sides have the same definition of tolerance and the same definitions of good an evil.

    For instance, what if that religion being practiced believed that homosexuality is a sin, and you did not?

    In their eyes they’d be justified in thinking you were intolerant of their god-given righteousness and you’d be justified in thinking that they were being intolerant of the liberty of others.

    Maybe they actively roam the streets harassing gay people, maybe they have laws about a death penalty, or maybe they just talk about them as unclean. Where does your tolerance start? Is it only at words and not action? Does that mean hate speech is ok?

    The paradox here isn’t to do with tolerance and intolerance, but the assertion that either of those things exist as objective view points.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thinking something someone else dies us wrong or immoral is is not the same as being intolerant.

      A religious person thinking homosexuality is a sin and simply looks down on gay people, but otherwise takes no action is being tolerant. They are not being accepting, just tolerating. Someone who actively tries to stop gay people from existing (through laws, conversion therapy, murder, etc.) is intolerant.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now what if they don’t actively seek to persecute, but they vote for people that follow their religion exclusively. These people enact laws that are harmful, but these laws were not the reason they chose them at the ballot. Still tolerant? Has it stepped into active yet?

        This is the issue. Intolerance breeds intolerance.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That would be intolerance since they are voting for someone who is intolerant. Assuming they didn’t know that person was intolerant and they don’t actively vote against that person in the future once they found out.

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is it still intolerance if when they voted they didn’t know? Or since they voted the politician changes their views? In your scenario it seems like wilful action is the decider. So, if it’s not wilful, it’s not intolerant?

            Let’s take trump, as an example. Many claimed he was racist and misogynistic before he was elected.People called him fascist. He’s now indicted on fraud and sexual assault etc. There was a breach of the capital. Are those that voted for him responsible, or just those convicted? If he lies and says it wasn’t his intent, but most people see through it, are those that continue to vote for him ignorant or wilfully ignorant?

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it is blatantly obvious that the person is lying then they are willfully ignorant, and if they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong then they are intolerant.

              If they were lied to with no reason to believe the person was lying and immediately stop supporting them once they find out, then they were not being intolerant. Hard to fault someone who acted based on the knowledge they had at the time.

              Anyone who did not see through Trump’s lies were willfully ignorant because reality constantly contradicted him. But most people knew he was lying because he constantly contradicted himself and they agreed with his intolerant views and knew he was lying about anything he said that sounded tolerant.

              • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So 30%+ of America is intolerant by your measure? Seems awfully high. That’s the paradox of tolerance. The more you tolerate intolerance, the more it spreads. It’s insidious.

                Personally, I think your measure of what is tolerant and intolerant is not quite right. It’s beliefs and actions that matter. You seem to tolerate beliefs, even if intolerant, so long as the actions are within a framework you don’t think is acting intolerant. That framework will get pushed to the limit, then stretched, then breached. So, despite a different definition, the paradox applies. Allowing the intolerant to amplify and spread their views should not be tolerated. They won’t follow the rules in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t argue in earnest. They spread hatred and it grows. Tolerating the intolerance, not correcting it and calling it out allows it to grow. That is why intolerance should not be tolerated.

                • jonne@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  30% seems about right, yeah. IIRC that’s also the highest electoral margins the Nazis got in free elections.

      • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A religious person thinking homosexuality is a sin and simply looks down on gay people,

        The problem with this is, this religious person won’t want to live around gay people and will do anything in its power to do so.

    • adam_y@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The very fact there’s now a bunch of comments each defining “tolerance” as something different but with equal fervour sort of proves the point.

      Look, I have no answers, but I was particularly commenting on the assertion that the paradox dissolved if you think about it. It doesn’t. It’s not that easy, and if you think it is, you are the reason why the paradox upholds.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The social contract is to tolerate that which doesn’t harm or significantly affect you. Someone can choose not to be gay, and that’s fine. They don’t have to “tolerate” a gay guy hitting on them. However, 2 gay guys sleeping together is none of their business. In your case, the religious person can feel what they want. When they start trying to impose that on the gay guy, they are being intolerant.

      Things get more complex when worldviews start impinging on each other. E.g. the religious person can have issues with a “gay pride” parade. At the same time the gay community has a reasonable right to express themselves. The balance of these views is a lot of how the rest of society functions.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        People don’t choose their sexuality. They can choose not to act on it, but that’s repression and is harmful.

        We’ve got to the crux though. There are opposing viewpoints. A gay pride parade might be tolerated, but what if it is protested, peacefully. I should the pride parade tolerate the protest?

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s where the debates and larger social attitudes. A gay pride parade, by its nature impinges on those in the area. How much we accept that is part of a larger social discussion. It is unreasonable to completely ban big public events, but also unreasonable to allow any and all, without a proper understanding of their effects.

          In your case, a protest would generally be outside this. If the protesters travel in, to put themself in the environment, then they are being intolerant. Conversely, it’s not if the parade goes straight past their church, and they put up signs etc. In the first, they are deliberately putting themselves into the situation. In the latter, they are being affected by it, through no action of their own.

          The orange parades in Northern Ireland are a good example of this problem. They want to march along “traditional” routes. Those routes take them through areas who disagree with them. Both groups have very reasonable arguments. Who’s rights should win out?

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So, if it’s just about being in the area deciding, is it intolerant for the gay people that live in an area to protest the church daily that preaches they are living in sin?

            You seem to be tying yourself in knots trying to justify what is tolerance and what is valid expression. It shouldn’t depend on where the bigot happens to be located. Tolerance is not protesting or denigrating anyone else’s right to exist. Preaching that gay is sinful is not tolerance. Marching past people who disagree with you just to inflame tensions, a la northern Ireland, is not valid free speech.

            If Jews in Nazi Germany had to just accept that nazis don’t like Jews, and wellz we’re in Germany, whatcha gonna do? Would that be in line with your thinking? Or should we say that antisemitism is wrong, even when it’s within a regime that believes in it? That’s the paradox of tolerance. You don’t tolerate intolerance just because it’s someone’s belief.

    • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s true. But it also requires that both sides have the same definition of tolerance and the same definitions of good an evil.

      It’s a similar problem to respect. If I said “I’ll show you respect if you show me respect” I could mean that I’ll give you due regard for your feelings if you’ll do the same. However, too often it means I’ll give due regard for your feelings if you’ll treat me with deep admiration.

    • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The line is when actions are taken.

      Religious people are allowed to believe and say that homosexuality is a sin.

      Atheists are allowed to believe and say that religious people are stupid.

      I don’t believe that hate speech is defined the same way everywhere, but it’s not really that difficult to say “we don’t legislate sin; nor stupidity.” People expressing their views is not necessarily hate speech. Calling something a sin or calling something stupid is not on par with a call to action, or attempt to intimidate a group of people.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s less about tolerance of people and more about tolerance of beliefs, but more importantly actions. It requires personal agency and bodily autonomy to be sacrosanct to function. Ergo, if you wish to cut off your arm and make a taco out of it, that’s fine, but you cannot force someone to eat said taco, nor can you force someone to assist you in cutting off your arm. It’s your body, your choice, your action, and your consequences.

      This means, if you have a religion where women are viewed as inferiors, that’s perfectly fine to have. You can believe that women are lesser beings as much as you want, and you’re free to treat women like the complete and total dickwad you are, but you cannot violate their personal autonomy. You cannot force anyone to partake in your beliefs or act in accordance with your beliefs.

      I’d say that roaming gangs of people harrassing others does impeach on said others’ personal autonomy, and thus wouldn’t be tolerated.

      Believe that homosexuality is a sin? Great. Don’t engage in homosexuality. Believe that your labia needs cutting off? Great, do it, find someone else who shares your belief and have it done to you. You may not force this upon your daughter though, your rights end where hers begin.

      You’re allowed to have your god, and someone else can have theirs, even if said gods are complete polar opposites and clash with one another. Deal with it, or sod off.

      Then you’ll have to take it on a case by case basis. Like with everything. There’s no perfect system. There never will be a perfect system.