1030
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

This assumes that censorship is inherently bad. Censorship against speech regarding the government should be protected. However it's perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas, and many countries censor hate speech. We censor people's ability to physically and emotionally harm others. We censor threats. Censorship isn't inherently bad, and is already used functionally everywhere, just ask ChatGPT.

I do however think censorship can be dangerous. I think the censorship we see in public forums (including lemmy) already treads on the toes of legitimate intellectual conversation of objective views on hate speech and offensive language. Tone policing is incredibly intellectually disingenuous, but is widespread because feelings trump literacy. I think the censorship of individual words is supremely dangerous because it also bans or limits the conversation around those words, their usage, etymology, and understanding their use. Comprehension of offensive things is just as valuable as understanding anything else, if not more so should you wish to fight them, but censorship of offensive things without context destroys the capacity for understanding to permeate the social consciousness.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 11 months 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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

No it's not. Harm has a definition.

load more comments (51 replies)
[-] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

This assumes that censorship is inherently bad.

I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad, and I especially hate the idea that people think they have the authority to restrict what others learn about.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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?

load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
1030 points (93.2% liked)

Political Memes

5267 readers
2036 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS