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.

  • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
    5•9 months ago

    I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad

    Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.

    There’s a reason I clarified that censorship of words and concepts for education is dangerous, censoring people using those concepts to cause harm is not.

    Or did you stop reading after the first sentence?

    • @CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      -2•9 months ago

      Dude… If you don’t understand that my comment is responding to your post in its entirety, that ain’t my problem.

      Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.

      Even people I find abhorrent have rights. That’s kind of how it works. Like your opinion is drastically harmful to my way of life, and I think people like yourself have a misguided concept of what’s actually in your control, but I support your right to express yourself.

      Also there’s a paradox in your thinking. You said speech against governments should be protected. So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action. Do we not now have a right to talk about X due to the fact that it’s being censored by a governing force? If not how do you rectify that against your belief speech against governments should be protected.

      • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        3•9 months ago

        You said speech against governments should be protected.

        Yes

        So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action.

        You shouldn’t ban speaking about anything. This is where you missed the point.

        Think of it like this. It should be illegal to be a Nazi. It should be legal to discuss Naziism.

        It should be illegal to use racial epithets directed at a person in hate, but it should be legal to say and talk about those words.

        It’s called contextual nuance, and until you have a solid grasp of it you won’t be able to make accurate determinations.

          • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            3•9 months ago

            No, being pro nazi is not against the government, it’s against the rights of other people. You really are thick.

            • @CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              -2•9 months ago

              Nope, in your system the government has banned Nazism which means nazis are now able to oppose that action, and promote their beliefs in opposition of the government.

              You really are thick.

              Dude you’re smart enough to see the holes in your position, I’m not the one being thick here, but you do you.