Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually seize power and make an intolerant society, the only way a society can become truly tolerant is by being intolerant towards intolerance.
It's paradoxical, but makes absolute sense. If you allow Nazis to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough Nazis to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they'll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced. The only way to prevent it is by cutting the evil at the root and prevent Nazis from spreading their ideology.
Personally I believe that punching a person who hasn't tried to attack me or anyone is wrong. But the moment someone openly preaches that someone else must be exterminated they're inciting violence which can encourage others to act on it, to me, morally speaking, attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.
Would I personally punch a person because they're spewing hate? Probably not, I would probably try to talk to them and understand their point of view and try to convince them otherwise, since I believe that punching them would make the person close himself to any reasoning from outside of his group, which would make him more Nazi than before. But I also don't think it's morally wrong to do so, it's just not the optimal way of dealing with it.
It's not a paradox if you see it as a social contract where every side is equally bound and protected by. Failure to abide by this means you are not protected.
100% agree with your message, but just for clarity's sake I believe you meant "the intolerant will eventually 'seize'" as in take, like a seizure of assets. Cease is putting an end to something.
Normally I wouldn't bother to correct someone, but the irony of the mistake is that it contradicts your intended message by saying that if you tolerate intolerance, it will cease to exist.
Thanks for the correction, I've edited the comment, indeed that could be missinterpreted.
What you are describing is actually the simple truth that many worldviews and the beliefs and values that stem from them are incompatible and cannot coexist. This is the fundamental problem with the first ammendment. It assumes that people are exercising beliefs that are not diametrically opposed to each other.
This precise argument can also be made to justify a tightening on immigration from countries where religious intolerance is the cultural norm, on the grounds that "if you allow [them] to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough [of them] to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced". Reasonable?
Not reasonable because you're making a broad generalization that everyone in that country will be intolerant. I'm in favor of facilitating immigration, in fact I'm an immigrant myself, but I do believe that specific people who have intolerant views of others should not be allowed to immigrate.
For example (since this is the most obvious example for immigration), not all Muslims are intolerant, lots of them just want to live a normal life, follow their religion and are okay with others following theirs. Other Muslims are intolerant towards different religions or ways of life, just like how you have Christians who think the same. If you make a broad statement of "all Muslim immigrants are intolerant" you're the one being intolerant, if you say "People who are not okay with LGBT+ rights or freedom of religion should not be allowed to immigrate" then I'm okay with that statement. But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it's unlikely they'll use this argument.
Also I think that as a general rule immigration requires adaptation, if you're interested in moving to another country you should adapt to the culture (and even more importantly the laws) of that place. To give a somewhat innocuous example of this, here in Europe is common for women to expose their breasts when going to the beach, in other parts of the world (possibly including the US) people would be horrified and demand that they're forced to cover themselves, in fact I can imagine a stereotypical US Karen demanding that someone covers their breasts because their kid will see them, but curiously I've never seen that happen. In fact I've even seen Muslim women on the beach, covered from head to toe with special made swimsuits, in the beach near others who were sunbathing and neither of them complained about the other, they just enjoyed their day at the beach their own way. That Muslim woman was likely an immigrant, yet she understands that this is not the same country she grew up, it has different rules and different culture, and she's okay with it, she teaches her values and her culture to their kids, but also teaches them that they need to respect others, and those kind of immigrants not a problem, unlike an intolerant co-citizen.
Generalizations are broad by nature, that does not mean they have no value.
Can't speak for the USA but that is absolutely not the case in Europe.
Otherwise you make some decent points. In any case, IMO discussions like this would benefit if we accepted from the outset that nobody is going to be convincing others to change their opinions. The best that can be hoped for is to understand the opposing side better. That would be an achievement in itself.
I didn't say that they provide no value, I said that the argument of you can't tolerate intolerance can't be used to advocate intolerance towards a group that contains tolerant people, even if the majority of them were not then the argument applies to those specific people, not to the group as a whole.
OK. Not sure how far that recipe gets us in practice, but it's a respectable argument.
Congratulations you found the paradox part of the argument! However one of these is not like the other
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/neo-nazi
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/
These sources don't prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.
Sources often don't convince the opposing party in an argument, especially in a political one. You're not my audience, I already know you're anchored in your convictions. You may as well be an LLM or a useful idiot manipulated by misinformation. I don't care.
You're not my audience. I don't care what you think. I'm providing a counterpoint for folk that haven't researched or haven't made up their mind.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008389118
That's a good point and I work to this principle myself. So my observation was pretty redundant, yes.
To the extent you know anything about me, I also "know" that your own convictions are just as unmovable.
Looked at another way, it's a good thing to have convictions.
K
Neither of the links seems to mention immigrants from intolerant countries, so I’m not sure how they’re relevant to the comment you’re replying to.
Correct! I am not using a strawman argument like @JubilantJaguar is.
Immigrants from intolerant countries are not inherently intolerant. In fact they're likely to be tolerant of the practices of the country they're immigrating to, because people tend to want to move to places with policies they agree with.
However, Nazis are inherently intolerant. That's integral to ideology of a Nazi.
Thus the links I shared and the disparity they highlight.
Yes, I agree, it's not always black in white, but your example is a bad example, I don't care the language someone says that, "The Jews should be eliminated" is an intolerant statement, just as much as "The Muslims should be eliminated", regardless of who says it, it's intolerant and should not be excused by someone's skin color.
Also we must clarify if we're talking about moral or legal argument, as I said morally I think you're okay punching someone in the face when they said you should be eliminated, legally you should probably have some proof of that.
With forço proportional to the threat, just like the moral basis for any any self defense. You can't shoot someone who pushed you, but someone who threaten your life is morally (and if you have proof of the threat and it is believable also legally) fair game. Same thing applies here, someone stating "X should be prevented from voting" should not legally be allowed to be punched, but should have his voting rights removed temporarily.
Yes, if they threaten your, or anyone's, life then killing them is self defense and morally okay in my opinion. So someone claiming "all X should be exterminated" can morally be killed.
Yes, that's why it's a paradox, it wouldn't be a paradox if it didn't have some contradiction in it. But that contradiction is easy to fix, in my examples X must be a superset of people that includes tolerant people. This means that Jews or Muslims are an invalid X, since there are tolerant Jews or Muslims, but "people who wish (non-X) dead" are not, e.g. "people who wish Muslims dead" are a valid X.
Maybe I missed it being mentioned elsewhere, but I think the writeup I'm familiar fits well with this angle of the discussion. Basically, it says tolerance is a social contract that we're all born into and protected by so long as we uphold our part of the contract (by being tolerant.) If you are intolerant then you break that contract and are no longer protected by it, therefore making intolerance toward you acceptable and not a breach of the contract for others.
(Also, I agree that religions/race/etc are invalid for judging somebody's tolerance)