• PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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
      6
      ·
      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.