this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
944 points (96.5% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
2240 readers
68 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is a very intolerant position. Therefore, by the logic of this post, people who say things like "They must be ridiculed, ostracized, outlawed and if they still won't shut up, they must be beaten senseless" must be ridiculed, ostracized, outlawed and if they still won't shut up, they must be beaten senseless.
Yes, the resolution to the "paradox" of tolerance is that (a) "the intolerant" is anyone that would deny human rights to any other human (b) the intolerant must be denied political power since they will use it to create an intolerant society.
Tolerance doesn't justify political violence.
However, defense of self or others CAN justify violence against the intolerant. The threat of increased stochastic violence due to inflammatory rhetoric is not as clear as a person stating their intent to kill and then brandishing a firearm, but both can be mortal threats. At the very least acts of political violence CAN be justified by the actor to a jury of their peers. Denying a political violence can ever be justified (I'm looking at you Bernie) ignores history and supports every authoritarian regime.
I'm not saying that the Kirk murder was justified, but ... I'd be willing to hear a defendant out as a jurist or jury member.
There is no resolution to the paradox of intolerance.
What you're providing is an excuse to be intolerant. You say "I'm allowed to be intolerant to this guy because this guy is intolerant", but whatever excuse you use, you're now intolerant, and you deserve whatever punishment you think intolerant people deserve.
There's no special category for "people who are intolerant, but only intolerant to those they view as intolerant". There's the tolerant, and the intolerant. If you are intolerant, no matter how good your reasons, you're still intolerant. Thus, the paradox.
No, I am tolerant of the intolerant. I believe they should receive all the same rights as I do: food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, UBI, etc. Political power is NOT a human right, it is a privilege and a responsibility. If you are intolerant, you don't get to use political power for any purpose. This resolves the paradox, preventing the intolerant from creating a intolerant society from a tolerant one.
Justification of (political) violence is really separate from the paradox of tolerance. Ideally, no violence would be required because none would be intent on and capable of denying someone else their bodily autonomy. Failing that, violence in defense (of self or others) is justified.
So you vehemently disagree with the meme because there's no escaping the paradox of intolerance?
I disagree with the "meme" but not for that "reason". Also, that "reason" is an untrue statement.