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.
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.
It’s not an arbitrary decision, Intolerance is the opposite of tolerance. I don’t know how to make this any clearer.
Intolerance is defined as:
unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.
You’ll note that this definition is entirely internal, it is a behaviour based solely on your own actions, not an outside forces opinion of your actions. A man alone on an island could act just as intolerant of an arbitrary opinion as someone immersed in society.
There are DEFINITELY times when using words should be a crime, to take it to an extreme since that’s the realm you live in, Should someone not be persecuted for screaming obscenities at strangers? Or using words to drive someone to suicide? Or using words to lie and incriminate? If someone says to you they truly plan to kill you have they committed a crime?
Should someone not be persecuted for screaming obscenities at strangers
No, they absolutely should not lol. Why should they?
Or using words to drive someone to suicide.
No, they should not because the words didn’t kill anyone.
Or using words to lie and incriminate
This is one of the few times they should be, and that’s because you’re legitimately causing direct negative consequences to someone else with said words.
If someone says to you they truly plan to kill you
Unless they actually attempt it then no, I don’t think that should be a crime.
Words are not violence. Words can’t hurt you. Anyone thinking they are and they can needs to toughen up.
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.
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.
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.
And who decides what views are “intolerant”?
It’s not an arbitrary decision, Intolerance is the opposite of tolerance. I don’t know how to make this any clearer.
Intolerance is defined as:
unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.
You’ll note that this definition is entirely internal, it is a behaviour based solely on your own actions, not an outside forces opinion of your actions. A man alone on an island could act just as intolerant of an arbitrary opinion as someone immersed in society.
So you agree that jailing someone for voicing their beliefs because you disagree with them is being intolerant?
Now we are back to the paradox of tolerance, which you would realise if you actually tried.
And we’re back to the concept of that paradox being bullshit to begin with.
there is a difference between holding views and using words to commit crimes
Using words should almost never be a crime. That’s the point. These are fascist, authoritarian laws.
There are DEFINITELY times when using words should be a crime, to take it to an extreme since that’s the realm you live in, Should someone not be persecuted for screaming obscenities at strangers? Or using words to drive someone to suicide? Or using words to lie and incriminate? If someone says to you they truly plan to kill you have they committed a crime?
No, they absolutely should not lol. Why should they?
No, they should not because the words didn’t kill anyone.
This is one of the few times they should be, and that’s because you’re legitimately causing direct negative consequences to someone else with said words.
Unless they actually attempt it then no, I don’t think that should be a crime.
Words are not violence. Words can’t hurt you. Anyone thinking they are and they can needs to toughen up.
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.