• 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wdym you want people to have principled opinions on cancel culture? We’re on the internet, here we doxx hold people accountable for the things we don’t like and complain when the wrong people face repercussions of their behavior outside their jobs

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my day we did all our racism anonymously or down the pub, rather than online, under your real name, next to a photo of your real face.

      • Nobsi@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, why?
        Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences…

      • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The paradox of tolerance suggests we draw a line and decide some things are unacceptable to tolerate or the tolerant will be overwhelmed by the intolerant. I’m sure Poppers arguments are not without flaws but absolute free speech is a pipe dream.

        There are limits to free speech in US laws already, some common examples are slander, libel, and threats. There’s also “imminent lawless action” where words inciting violence can be restricted.

        Maybe I’m drawing a false correlation between the two ideas but in general I don’t think it’s so black and white as you might suggest.

        • vanya913@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The paradox of tolerance is some philosopher’s idea, not some sort of axiom. We really need to stop quoting it. It’s not even the only idea of its kind. There are several philosophers with more nuanced takes.

            • vanya913@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Says who? It’s okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it’s a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that’s how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.

                • vanya913@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That’s what Rawls argues.

                  But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.

                  For example, France’s ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That’s how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.

                  If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn’t a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.

                  You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I’m not trying to “both sides” this, I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.

                  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves

                    Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.

                    But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.

                    All we can do is give it our best try. It’s better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can’t get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.

                    You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well.

                    The good news is that you don’t have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.

                    I’m trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn’t actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.

                    I don’t agree, but even so, you haven’t proposed an alternative yet.

          • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did state that his argument was not without its flaws. It still serves its purpose as a thought experiment about how a society should handle radically dissenting opinions.

            I won’t pretend to know the answer in practice and censorship makes me uneasy but my debate is against free speech absolutionists.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amoral isn’t a virtue worth upholding. We should encourage good things and discourage bad things.

          • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good news, you have that freedom. But everybody else has the freedom to decide not to associate with you for it.

            • cricket97@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think public institutions should be able to make that call. Private institutions and individuals, sure.

                • cricket97@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because I don’t want to give some unelected bureaucrats the ability to discommunicate someone because they said something stupid. Public goods are meant to serve the public, even if they have bad opinions.

                  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think the limit should be pretty high, but I’m fine with, as an example, people who spread abject hatred being rejected by most parts of society. I think not spreading hatred against your fellows is an integral part of the social contract.