610
Opinions
(lemmy.ml)
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 26 Sep 2023
610 points (81.6% liked)
Memes
50275 readers
433 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Paradox of Tolerance
Solved simply by treating tolerance as a social contract instead of an absolute moral doctrine.
Break the contract, lose the protections.
Well put.
It really is just as simple as "don't do mental gymnastics", there's only a paradox here if you make one
Human rights should always be universal and immutable, we can't go around deciding who does or doesn't have basic human rights. Antifa has to be the better people because unfortunately we have to be the adults in the room and show the children what it means to be a decent human being. But, having your human rights respected doesn't mean that you're immune to the consequences of your actions like getting the shit kicked out of you for being a Nazi prick, or getting locked up in prison for the rest of your life.
We do decide who doesn't get all their rights all the time. It's called jail.
Those aren't Human Rights, those are Freedoms. Freedoms are often included as part of Human Rights decrees but they are usually merely subsections of Human Rights decrees and can be restricted by governments if there is just cause, but never or rarely removed outright.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies a few key things like the Right to Life including protections from slavery and torture. The Freedom of Movement is one that can be restricted if you prove dangerous. The big one that most people are referring to when they mention Human Rights is all of the "constitutional liberties", here's a quote from the article I linked about that:
The above linked declaration hasn't been ratified in every country, and it's sort of a basic boilerplate that countries may use to form their own Human Rights decrees. But again the big one that is quite universal is the constitutional liberties which are basically the freedom from discrimination and oppression.
My point being, restricting a person's Freedoms isn't necessarily the same as violating their Human Rights.
I mean, there is the right to bear arms, people in jail and felons don't have that right. Felons can't even vote.
Human rights are bigger than just the United States. What happens there is a pretty atrocious infringement on the rights of inmates. It's not surprising though, considering the US prison system is essentially just modern slavery and that there are corporations who have a vested interest in dehumanizing the inmates so they can exploit them as slave labor without anyone objecting.
People in jail can't do that.
They can't do that either.
I mean, how do you define persecution? Because we help find people sometimes, which seems like the opposite.
No, there are real adults with these opinions. Real adults that perform real actions based on their opinions. If they can't stop themselves from being uncivilized animals based on bigotry and discrimination then we need to protect the rest of our society that is peaceful and tolerant. The only way to be decent to absolute villains is to relinquish them of their ability to take action. Otherwise everything we've built since Babylon comes tumbling down.
tfw they are ushering you into a gas chamber but you don't fight back because you don't want to infringe on their human rights.
Let's walk through an example. Please note that I absolutely do not mean anything of what I'm about to say. Imagine someone were to say the following things.
I'm going to kill you. I don't think you have a right to exist. I'm going to torture, dismember, and end you because I personally believe this is morally right. You do not deserve life. I will come to your home. I will take you in the night. I will make you watch as your family screams in terror while I take them all away. I will do this to everyone like you. I will destroy you because I believe it is the right thing to do. I will experiment on you. You will be like cattle for my whims because I do not believe you are human like me. You are just a meat sack. I will abuse you simply for my enjoyment because you hold no value beyond the value I give you. You are worthless, and I will dispose of you.
If someone legitimately said these things to you, if they really meant it, would you want the government to just be like, "hey man, they can say whatever they want. Human rights?" This is a Nazi's inner monologue.
Uttering death threats is a crime in most nations. So they would hopefully be put in jail long before they acted upon those thoughts. If someone is that disturbed then there's something wrong with them on a fundamental level -- be that nature or nurture. What I would hope for that person is that they're locked away from society, but treated as well as they can be considering some safety measures need to be in place for even prison guards to interact with someone like that.
I'm not arguing at all that we never lock anyone up, that's absurd and anyone who thinks that is probably intentionally misunderstanding my meaning. I just think that treating people with as much dignity and respect as we can is the right thing to do in all circumstances. Dehumanizing and othering people is what fascists do, if we want to call ourselves the good guys, we can't act like fascists. It's just plain wrong, and it's evil.
The paradox of tolerance can only apply to actions though, otherwise you just become the intolerant one that should be ostracized.
No
Saying shitty things doesn’t get you a free pass just because “it’s just words”
Saying shitty things is an action, and demands appropriate counter action
But speaking is an action. Thinking isn't
Think what you want, but if you say or do shitty things, expect people to treat you like shit
Yeah - that's what I meant...
And the appropriate counter action is also words.
We have to be tolerant to the intolerant, otherwise, who defines what tolerance is?
Tolerating the intolerant is the price we have to pay to live in a just society.
That sounds pretty intolerant to me. Can you find the door by yourself?
Why should they leave? They haven't said anything intolerant. You are being an asshole.
I'm a hypocrite myself so I don't mind much, but why should your rules apply to me if they don't apply to you?
And also, great explanation. You could make a Ted talk, I'm sure.
I'm saying that I'm an advocate for equality. :)
Edit: Perhaps I should say "fair treatment" instead of "equality", as "equality" is rather loaded and can mean different things depending on context. My bad.
And besides, now that I am editing anyway and haven't received any answers to this comment. I do not think that everyone needs to be tolerant or needs to be tolerated, as that is a fallacy. Tolerate those who tolerate you, respect those who show you respect. And yet, one should at least try to tolerate those who disrespect one, unless they cause you significant harm, as there will always be those with differing opinions.
We can't make everybody happy, and I personally despise both extremes of this argument; those who tolerate nobody, and those who advokate to tolerate everybody, but themselves choose only to do so when it's comfortable. Of course this includes those who are so tolerant that they go on 'witch hunts' against those who are 'intolerant', with little or no aggression from the other side.
[Citation needed]
You really should read the article that Dadifer@lemmy.world posted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.)
The TL;DR is that in order to create a tolerant society, ironically, the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. The paradox comes from the idea that if intolerance is tolerated and allowed to gain any kind of a foothold then the society is no longer tolerant, but if we stamp it out and nip it at the bud then that's also intolerant.
However, the paradox obviously has one preferred outcome which is that intolerance of intolerance is the only way to maintain a (mostly) tolerant society. The other option is letting the Nazis win.
This isn’t an axiom. It’s just Karl Popper’s opinion. One of the few times the paradox of intolerance was actually invoked in a legal setting was in Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany
The German federal government had petitioned for the Communist Party to be banned in 1952 on the basis that the party's revolutionary practice means "the impairment or the abolition of the fundamental liberal democratic order in the Federal Republic". Following hearings, the Federal Constitutional Court ordered in 1956 that the party be dissolved and its assets confiscated, and banned the creation of substitute organizations.
Is this... is this satire?
It's blatant troll bait is what it is.
Why don't mods delete this stuff?