Australia

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 1 point 8 months ago

Tolerance is only paradoxical when you go out of your way to not view it as a social contact.

When tolerance is the social contact, then everyone is protected by it except those who go out of their way to not be protected by it.

parent

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -3 points 8 months ago (11 children)

That concept is, pardon my French, complete bullshit.

Remember - you’re being intolerant of people who hold views you don’t like. Think what these laws mean when, not if, people with opposing views to you get in power.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

It's not about being intolerant of views you "don't like" it's about being intolerant of intolerant views, that's why it's a paradox. Personal feelings aren't involved only whether the view seeks to persecute another.

The fact you're assuming anyone calling out intolerance is doing it from an emotional position implies some rather distressing things about your world view tbh.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

And who decides what views are “intolerant”?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's not an arbitrary decision, Intolerance is the opposite of tolerance. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Intolerance is defined as:

unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.

You'll note that this definition is entirely internal, it is a behaviour based solely on your own actions, not an outside forces opinion of your actions. A man alone on an island could act just as intolerant of an arbitrary opinion as someone immersed in society.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

So you agree that jailing someone for voicing their beliefs because you disagree with them is being intolerant?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Now we are back to the paradox of tolerance, which you would realise if you actually tried.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 7 months ago

And we’re back to the concept of that paradox being bullshit to begin with.

parent

[–] Seagoon_@aussie.zone 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

there is a difference between holding views and using words to commit crimes

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

Using words should almost never be a crime. That’s the point. These are fascist, authoritarian laws.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

There are DEFINITELY times when using words should be a crime, to take it to an extreme since that's the realm you live in, Should someone not be persecuted for screaming obscenities at strangers? Or using words to drive someone to suicide? Or using words to lie and incriminate? If someone says to you they truly plan to kill you have they committed a crime?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 7 months ago

Should someone not be persecuted for screaming obscenities at strangers

No, they absolutely should not lol. Why should they?

Or using words to drive someone to suicide.

No, they should not because the words didn’t kill anyone.

Or using words to lie and incriminate

This is one of the few times they should be, and that’s because you’re legitimately causing direct negative consequences to someone else with said words.

If someone says to you they truly plan to kill you

Unless they actually attempt it then no, I don’t think that should be a crime.

Words are not violence. Words can’t hurt you. Anyone thinking they are and they can needs to toughen up.

parent

[–] fizzle@quokk.au -1 points 8 months ago

It really is.

The thing is it has very strong im-15-and-this-is-deep energy and it has it's own wikipedia page and it's something that every idiot on lemmy and reddit has heard of and it makes them feel superior to trot it out at every opportunity.

The irony is, as you say, every time someone references the paradox of intolerance they're literally invoking it in order to justify being intolerant.

Yes, it's true that some opinions and behaviors should not be tolerated. However, the things which we as a society choose not to tolerate need to be very carefully considered in each and every instance.

The paradox of intolerance allows one to merely brand a person or group of people you don't like as being "intolerant" and then you're free to exclude them from your circle of tolerance.