The inference here is that both views are of equivalent merit which is very much not true. This idea is called The Paradox of Tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except... That's not what democracy relies on. Democracy relies on discourse of views, even if they are unpopular. Tolerating only the prevailing opinion isn't a democracy, it's an autocracy.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I mean, in practice, there are always limits to the discussion. Something like a constitution, a set of shared base beliefs that allow people to have the same base language to engage in a productive discussion, otherwise it turns into a mob discussing whether the vaccines work or not and no conclusion is reached. In a controlled environment or in a parliament, it's possible to have these wide-view from-first-principles discussions of society. Not in mainstream media and certainly not online, as you've probably seen in any unmoderated forum.