I said something along the lines of:

“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”

Along with

“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”

In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.

…

Good ole’ civility clause.

Whats the paradox of tolerance?

.world mods have never heard of it I guess.

  • sp3ctr4lOPEnglish
    30·
    15 days ago

    It’s a actually a philosophical argument against tolerating the intolerant, against giving those who do or would destroy an equal voice in the name of tolerance.

    The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[2] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

    The actual ‘paradox’ is just used as a starting position for an argument, and that argument has a definitive, non paradoxical conclusion, according to Popper, the guy who came up with the whole thing.

    Somtimes there’s more to a term than just the words that constitute it.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      61·
      15 days ago

      the paradox of tolerance is stupid (e: as a rhetorical tool) anyway because why on earth is a paradox a suitable foundation for any argument, much less an argument with life and death involved? literally wish i could wipe that shit from the history of the internet.

      (edit: obviously i still agree with the sentiment of the paradox but it could be argued so much more efficiently.) real ones conceive of tolerance as a social contract. infinitely easier and less chronically online “um-akshually”-pilled.

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        14·
        15 days ago

        You sound like a flat-earther with this argument. “How could the behaviour of the sky possibly tell us anything about the shape of the ground?”. Well, it does. And just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong.

        1. The paradox of tolerance is a valid argument, and it has been since long before the creation of the internet (Karl Popper, The Principle of Leadership, 1945).
        2. If we tolerate the intolerant, then intolerance becomes the norm.

        These aren’t my opinions, these are facts.
        If you can’t come up with some actual logic as to why we should ignore the tolerance paradox, then it will continue to stand as a cognitive guideline.
        Anyway why would you want to give the intolerant free rein? You should be glad you don’t have to tolerate them.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          41·
          15 days ago

          Yeah, you deeply deeply misunderstood what you are responding to my friend. Please read it again, or I’ve written another explanation here: https://lemmy.cafe/post/10380507/8770998

          My qualms are with the rhetorical language of the paradox. I actually quite agree with the paradox’s sentiment, as I see you also do.

          I don’t appreciate the jump to insults either. I’m sorry you misunderstood me but let’s stay kind when responding, hm?

          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
            1·
            15 days ago

            There was no insult intended. Before your edit and response, your argument sounded like flat earth nonsense. I’ll go and read your explanation.

          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
            1·
            15 days ago

            There was no insult intended. Before your edit and response, your argument sounded like flat-earth-style nonsense. I’ll go and read your explanation.

            Edit: can’t open your link