this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
527 points (99.6% liked)

196

16449 readers
2422 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 61 points 1 year ago (6 children)

There actually is no paradox if you think of this way:

Be tolerant of ideas that harm nobody.

Be intolerant of ideas that harm others.

"I'm gay." <- Tolerable.

"I'm not gay, so I won't date men." <- Tolerable.

"I'm not gay, so I think we should kill all gay people." <- Intolerable.

[–] MenKlash@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The dilemma is how you define harming others and what implies being intolerant to an idea rather than a person holding that idea.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Harm is a pretty solid metric. Not some imaginary "think of the children" harm, but the "this disturbs/literally harms me" kind.

Yes, some people are precious little weirdos that won't want to see anything. The question then falls to society to determine if it was ultimately tolerable if they bring up grievance. Then the paradox comes in because the general vibes are always a moving target.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry but no, it's not in any way solid. Some think of what they see as sinful as harmful.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, sin is wholly different than harm.

[–] Streptember@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Beliefs and personal convictions muck that up a bit though.

There's a sadly significant portion of people who truly believe that being gay is hurting other people.

Whether they believe it only because they were told to or for some personal reason, they believe it nonetheless.

[–] SolarNialamide@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A gay person existing doesn't actually literally harm anyone though. A homphobe shouting slurs at a gay person, excluding them from vital social, economic or whatever activity or beating them up does very concretely harm someone. It's not that difficult.

[–] Streptember@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean people can't believe that it does.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with this is that people disagree about what harms others. Right wing insane people are not living in the same reality that you and I are. They genuinely believe that even seeing a gay person is harmful. They genuinely believe that the existence of gay people is harmful to others.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well no, there are objective harms and subjective harms.

If I slap you that's an objective harm.

If I'm gay and that's objectional to you, that's a subjective harm to some people.

Essentially physical acts v emotional harms.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people may see all morales as God given and therefore absolute

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Perhaps absolute but still not objective. I can prove things that are objective with repetition, subjective things not so much.

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

It is much more nuanced 🙁

By your logic almost every human would be intolerant. Big example is eating and exploiting animals.

[–] unmarketableplushie@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Chev@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll let you figure it out :3

or more succinctly: an ye harm none, do what ye will

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

Yes. I think harm is an excellent way to qualify it. As the old saying goes " if it ain't harm none do as thou mote "