• FreedomAdvocate
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That concept is, pardon my French, complete bullshit.

      Remember - you’re being intolerant of people who hold views you don’t like. Think what these laws mean when, not if, people with opposing views to you get in power.

      • TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        It’s not about being intolerant of views you “don’t like” it’s about being intolerant of intolerant views, that’s why it’s a paradox. Personal feelings aren’t involved only whether the view seeks to persecute another.

        The fact you’re assuming anyone calling out intolerance is doing it from an emotional position implies some rather distressing things about your world view tbh.

      • fizzle@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It really is.

        The thing is it has very strong im-15-and-this-is-deep energy and it has it’s own wikipedia page and it’s something that every idiot on lemmy and reddit has heard of and it makes them feel superior to trot it out at every opportunity.

        The irony is, as you say, every time someone references the paradox of intolerance they’re literally invoking it in order to justify being intolerant.

        Yes, it’s true that some opinions and behaviors should not be tolerated. However, the things which we as a society choose not to tolerate need to be very carefully considered in each and every instance.

        The paradox of intolerance allows one to merely brand a person or group of people you don’t like as being “intolerant” and then you’re free to exclude them from your circle of tolerance.