I don’t entirely disagree. But it does feel like it’s along the same slippery slope fallacy where once you start criminalizing one type of speech those who are unscrupulous enough will find a way to subvert it to attack others and restrict additional speech until dissent becomes criminal.
I don’t think we should tolerate the intolerant. We as a society need to be intolerant of them, but it’s a fine line when it’s the government itself that is doing it. Businesses need to ostracize them. Do not sell them goods or food. Do not allow them to enter your premises. Do not hire them.
We as individuals need to do the same.
Quite frankly, it’s the intolerant who have weaponized this so effectively. They have no qualms with harassing and doxing people whose views differ. I suppose there is a definition of intolerant that the tolerant need to collectively identify and fight at all costs. But it’s hard to define it especially when the intolerant use our tolerance against us.
I know that doing so will lead them to their own echo chambers and enclaves. I don’t have a solution for that which doesn’t involve physical harm. And the older I get, the more I understand the necessity of violence in order to preserve life and peace, as much as that sounds like an oxymoron.
It’s something we’re not going to solve in a Lemmy comment thread, but this “paradox of tolerance” is something governments the world over struggle with.
And you are correct in saying that bad actors will find a way to leverage any perceived weakness (tolerance, kindness, decency) against you, because they experience no moral or social repercussions for doing so. It’s the same reason something like the “Gish gallop” works, if you face no repercussions for lying exploiting the societal framework against your opponent by shifting the onus onto them to stay truthful and refute your lies mean you get to shift the burden of work to them, meaning it’s easier and faster to lie and keep lying.
And yes, you are also correct on how curtailing speech by legislation can be a slippery slope, malicious actors will likely leverage whatever you come up with to curtail hate speech and inciting of violence against their targets groups into the exact thing they will use to then attack the liberties of those groups with. I just don’t think not doing anything and letting societal repercussions do the job for us is working all to well either (see the rise of Nazi and other extremist right-wing ideologies).
Yup. Like I said toward the end, it seems the only direct way is through violence and at the cost of an individuals life or liberty.
So many think that the solution to the paradox of tolerance is to simple by intolerant of intolerance. But that’s such an oversimplification. I agree on principal. I just don’t know how that looks in practice.
“For every complex problem there’s an easy and simple solution that is wrong”.
But yes, I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be a solution to the problem other than to introduce consequences for this kind of hateful ideology into society again.
I don’t entirely disagree. But it does feel like it’s along the same slippery slope fallacy where once you start criminalizing one type of speech those who are unscrupulous enough will find a way to subvert it to attack others and restrict additional speech until dissent becomes criminal.
I don’t think we should tolerate the intolerant. We as a society need to be intolerant of them, but it’s a fine line when it’s the government itself that is doing it. Businesses need to ostracize them. Do not sell them goods or food. Do not allow them to enter your premises. Do not hire them.
We as individuals need to do the same.
Quite frankly, it’s the intolerant who have weaponized this so effectively. They have no qualms with harassing and doxing people whose views differ. I suppose there is a definition of intolerant that the tolerant need to collectively identify and fight at all costs. But it’s hard to define it especially when the intolerant use our tolerance against us.
I know that doing so will lead them to their own echo chambers and enclaves. I don’t have a solution for that which doesn’t involve physical harm. And the older I get, the more I understand the necessity of violence in order to preserve life and peace, as much as that sounds like an oxymoron.
It’s something we’re not going to solve in a Lemmy comment thread, but this “paradox of tolerance” is something governments the world over struggle with.
And you are correct in saying that bad actors will find a way to leverage any perceived weakness (tolerance, kindness, decency) against you, because they experience no moral or social repercussions for doing so. It’s the same reason something like the “Gish gallop” works, if you face no repercussions for lying exploiting the societal framework against your opponent by shifting the onus onto them to stay truthful and refute your lies mean you get to shift the burden of work to them, meaning it’s easier and faster to lie and keep lying.
And yes, you are also correct on how curtailing speech by legislation can be a slippery slope, malicious actors will likely leverage whatever you come up with to curtail hate speech and inciting of violence against their targets groups into the exact thing they will use to then attack the liberties of those groups with. I just don’t think not doing anything and letting societal repercussions do the job for us is working all to well either (see the rise of Nazi and other extremist right-wing ideologies).
Yup. Like I said toward the end, it seems the only direct way is through violence and at the cost of an individuals life or liberty.
So many think that the solution to the paradox of tolerance is to simple by intolerant of intolerance. But that’s such an oversimplification. I agree on principal. I just don’t know how that looks in practice.
“For every complex problem there’s an easy and simple solution that is wrong”. But yes, I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be a solution to the problem other than to introduce consequences for this kind of hateful ideology into society again.