In a world where those expressing certain "bad" opinions get punished simply for expressing those opinions, the paradox of tolerance has been corrupted. It ALWAYS comes down to the definition of what "intolerant" means.

Who is "intolerant" first? Who is most rightfully offended when multiple wrongs have been committed?

This is indeed a simple question when judging Nazis for being hateful shitheads, but a much more dangerous question when judging someone stealing food or diapers from Walmart.

Again, it's not a paradox because of where it begins. It's a paradox because "intolerant" is a moving target of social norms.

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

Yeah, there are a number of philosophical arguments against this but I think it's an interesting starting point.

A few of the arguments being that it's subjective, it creates a slippery slope, and it steps on first amendment rights of free speech.

I think the biggest question might be "so if we're not tolerating the intolerant, then what are we doing when we're not tolerating them?" Right? Do they get punished? Do they get socially shunned? Also in doing this do we give up on trying to "convert" them or convince them otherwise that they are incorrect in their thinking?

It seems like an interesting thought and I don't think I'd really thought of it that way before. Thanks for your feedback!

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

I think the most important thing to remember is: it is ALWAYS subjective. If you remove an action from its context, you will always arrive at the wrong answer. The most obvious example is punishment. A punishment is supposed to be bad to the punished. It is a negative that is supposed to be skillfully deployed like a hammer strike. The punished can always claim to be receiving a bad thing, because they are receiving a thing that'd normally be bad.

Punishment itself is not immoral no matter how much any specific person is unjustly punished. When analysing morals, you cannot confuse reciprocity or punishment for origination. Sure, there are plenty of situations where a negative punishment only succeeds in adding negative things to the world, but that's why it's a dangerous tool.

Sooo many people confuse axioms of, "do no harm" with, "I am completely against punishment and the concept of police and prison". It's ... sad, really. So many people want to ignore the nuance, but moral axioms are fundamental pivot points, NOT hard and fast rules.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it’s a pretty simple question when we’re talking about someone stealing from Walmart. Babies need diapers and food more than Walmart does

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Some people would argue the social offense of theft outweighs any personal benefit. Yes, those people are heartless morons, but there are MANY heartless morons (and worse) in the world. It only gets worse with actual gray areas, like self defense and assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is especially hilarious to make "intolerant". You don't want to live? Well that's illegal, and now we're going to make your life even worse!