this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
1029 points (93.2% liked)

Political Memes

5487 readers
2783 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
 

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
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it's not. Harm has a definition.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not one that remains objective over time. In 1820 Atheism, and Homosexuality would be considered harmful; in 1920 Racial equality would have been considered harmful, as would Unionization. Imagine the things we consider harmful today that our descendants in 2120 will consider us barbaric for.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's in the dictionary. Hasn't changed in a few hundred years.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sodomy was once considered harm. Masturbation was once deemed to be "self abuse". Some people consider vaccination and masks to be harmful. Judaism was seen as harmful by interwar Germans.

The dictionary defines the word; it does not determine whether a particular act can be described by that word. Harm is subjective, and changes.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, congratulations, you figured out what the other poster didn't. Shame you think you're disagreeing with me, but I'll take your unintended agreeance even if you don't have the comprehension to understand why. Nuance, only for the literate.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok. With this as context:

However it's perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas

Your acknowledgement that "Judaism" was once considered a "harmful idea" would seem to suggest you believe it is "perfectly legitimate to censor Judaism.

How are we not in disagreement?

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd consider all religion to be built on a number of harmful ideas as they are figments of peoples imagination rather than objective reality and have been used for subjugation and control.

And I'd argue that it is legitimate to censor those.

You act like context and nuance are nothing more than thought experiments.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok. Same question, swapping homosexuality in place of judaism.

Then, same question again, but remembering that "evolution" was once considered a harmful idea.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Homosexuality harms people? Got any proof? Seems to me like homosexuality is harmed by religion.

Evolution harms people? Willful ignorance isn't being harmed.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are developing a philosophical model for people to adopt. That model calls for the censoring of things that people seem to be "harmful".

At times in our history, certain people have, indeed, considered homosexuality to be "harmful".

If these people follow the philosophy you describe, these people should censor homosexuality. Is that your intent? Or is there a slight flaw in the philosophical model you have described?

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Here is the definition used. Re-assess your understanding, and be specific. I can't give you a cognizant answer unless we're on the same page.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm

In regards to homosexuality being considered harmful, there's a big difference between people's considerations and objective fact, that nuance is important.

Harm to oneself born of one's own intolerance is no ones issue but their own.

Intolerance is self harm.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok. I have re-read your definition again. I can work with this.

A group of people have observed a behavior that I may or may not have mentioned. This group of people has determined this behavior to be harmful. Should they censor it, or not? After you provide me with a definitive yes/no answer, I will tell you what that behavior was.

I don't know why you keep calling this "nuance"; it is not nuance. You are using that word incorrectly.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

The answers to these questions create contextual nuance.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The behavior does impact the group in an objective, verifiable way, and they have concluded that this impact is, indeed, harmful.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

That's not what I asked. Two questions, two answers. I agree they believe they are harmed.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm going to risk assuming that your silence is due to the understanding that my logic is solid and that both functional and self inflicted harm born of bigotry are logically determinable with adequate contextual nuance.

If this isn't the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.

[–] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just wanna point something out. You realize you are the oppressor right? Its not people having open discussions causing genocide, it's people like yourself that think you have the right to oppose yourself over others. How do you expect to enforce these positions?

[–] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lmao 🤣 it's gold that Lemmy saves the source of deleted comments. You really let your ego show there 🤣🤣🤣

And you are oppressive, 100%. You would oppress the religious rights of billions of people if only you could. How you would impose this without mass death? How would you be different from Nazis?

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

: to damage or injure physically or mentally : to cause harm

You don't think the definition of mental harm has changed over the last few hundred years?

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Read the rest of the page, context is included.

The things that cause harm change, the definition of harm is constant, not all harm is equal.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Having read the rest of the thread I would like you to answer @Rivalarrival@infosec.pub 's questions.

[–] Dimpships 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

@Rivalarrival@infosec.pub, got caught up on two simple questions and lost their composure.

load more comments (3 replies)