this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
71 points (78.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43161 readers
1617 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not a paradox, it's a social contract. Tolerance is only deserved by those who are tolerant themselves.
https://archive.ph/vL5iT
In philosophy, "paradox" often doesn't mean that something really is self-contradictory, but rather that it seems self-contradictory. There are what Quine called "veridical paradoxes" which seem at first to be contradictions but actually turn out to be true but non-obvious. That's the case for a lot of "paradoxes" arising from math, for example the birthday paradox.
(In any event, "deserve" is much more complicated than "paradox"!)
It is a paradox because there's no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It's literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you're left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.
People make the same mistake about bigotry. It's impossible not to be a bigot. You just don't want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.
The word paradox has too many meanings, alas. I like jan Misali’s explanation of the word: there are five definitions of paradox. https://youtu.be/ppX7Qjbe6BM?si=Lnkao0t0qFLi9tjj
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/ppX7Qjbe6BM?si=Lnkao0t0qFLi9tjj
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
The “paradox” here is that by being tolerant of intolerance, we are actually decreasing the overall level of tolerance when normally we’d expect tolerant behaviors to increase tolerance.
Compare it to the “death wave.” When someone stops in a multi lane intersection to allow someone to cross in debt of them, the pedestrian/vehicle can’t see around the stopped vehicle and this can result in them being hit by a motorist in the adjacent lane. It feels like you’re being safe and considerate, but you’re actually putting the other person in more danger than if you had simply followed the right of way. It happens often enough that a name has been coined for the phenomenon.
Tolerating hate increases hate, not tolerance. Tolerating hate in the extreme decreases tolerance not only relative to the hate, but because once hate takes over they eliminate tolerance (see Florida).