Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

  • mwguy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas,

    What is an isn’t a harmful idea changes drastically between generations. This would have been used to censor information about homosexuality before 1995 or so. “Harmful” as modernly defined is a subjective standard.

      • mwguy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not one that remains objective over time. In 1820 Atheism, and Homosexuality would be considered harmful; in 1920 Racial equality would have been considered harmful, as would Unionization. Imagine the things we consider harmful today that our descendants in 2120 will consider us barbaric for.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sodomy was once considered harm. Masturbation was once deemed to be “self abuse”. Some people consider vaccination and masks to be harmful. Judaism was seen as harmful by interwar Germans.

            The dictionary defines the word; it does not determine whether a particular act can be described by that word. Harm is subjective, and changes.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, congratulations, you figured out what the other poster didn’t. Shame you think you’re disagreeing with me, but I’ll take your unintended agreeance even if you don’t have the comprehension to understand why. Nuance, only for the literate.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok. With this as context:

                However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas

                Your acknowledgement that “Judaism” was once considered a “harmful idea” would seem to suggest you believe it is "perfectly legitimate to censor Judaism.

                How are we not in disagreement?

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’d consider all religion to be built on a number of harmful ideas as they are figments of peoples imagination rather than objective reality and have been used for subjugation and control.

                  And I’d argue that it is legitimate to censor those.

                  You act like context and nuance are nothing more than thought experiments.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Ok. Same question, swapping homosexuality in place of judaism.

                    Then, same question again, but remembering that “evolution” was once considered a harmful idea.

                  • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    lmao 🤣 it’s gold that Lemmy saves the source of deleted comments. You really let your ego show there 🤣🤣🤣

                    And you are oppressive, 100%. You would oppress the religious rights of billions of people if only you could. How you would impose this without mass death? How would you be different from Nazis?

                  • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I just wanna point something out. You realize you are the oppressor right? Its not people having open discussions causing genocide, it’s people like yourself that think you have the right to oppose yourself over others. How do you expect to enforce these positions?

          • mwguy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            : to damage or injure physically or mentally : to cause harm

            You don’t think the definition of mental harm has changed over the last few hundred years?

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Read the rest of the page, context is included.

              The things that cause harm change, the definition of harm is constant, not all harm is equal.

              • mwguy
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Having read the rest of the thread I would like you to answer @Rivalarrival@infosec.pub 's questions.

                • Dimpships@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  @Rivalarrival@infosec.pub, got caught up on two simple questions and lost their composure.

                  • mwguy
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I disagree. He asked a question that gets to the heart of the question, given that the definition of what is “harmful” has changed over the years and will continue to change into the future; does OP support the censorship of the things it would have censored and the things it may censor in the future? It’s a valid question and it core to the disagreement.

                    If OP doesn’t care about the dangers of censorship that’s fine, but they shouldn’t act like you can allow censorship without the problems it has historically and will in the future cause.