• ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • huge_clock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.