163
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
163 points (86.9% liked)
Asklemmy
51844 readers
582 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
There's a good argument regarding the tolerance paradox, and why it's ethically and morally justified to not tolerate extreme levels of unethical behaviors.
I've come to view tolerance not as a default position, but rather as a contract which people are defaulted into, if you're breaking it by refusing to be bound by it, you're no longer protected by it either.
There's a difference between not tolerating and dehumanizing. You don't need to dehumanize someone that you don't tolerate the behavior of, and it's also possible to dehumanize someone but tolerate their behavior.
They're simply two different things. Slightly related maybe, but distinct.
Tolerance is tangential to humanization. You can be tolerant of a human. You can also be intolerant of a human.
Tolerance and humanization are not the same thing. Understanding that terrible behaviors are human does not mean we must tolerate them.