Lemmy

12572 readers

26 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

How Lemmy's Communist Devs Saved It (coship.bloggi.co)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by morrowind@lemmy.ml to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JohnDoe@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This really sounds like a reformulation (with more accessible language and preferable IMO) of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I have it below for your convenience:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (in note 4 to Chapter 7, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1)

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

Yup - it is, partially, Popper's paradox of tolerance.

However there's a second risk that I mentioned there, that Popper doesn't talk about: that the mechanisms and procedures used to get rid of the intolerant might be abused and misused, to hunt the others.

I call this "witch hunting", after the mediaeval practice - because the ones being thrown into the fire were rarely actual witches, they were mostly common people. You see this all the time in social media; specially in environments that value "trust" (i.e. gullibleness) and orthodoxy over rationality. Such as Twitter (cue to "the main character of the day"), Reddit (pitchfork emporium), and even here in Lemmy.

[from your other comment] There is another solution. Make it so witches cannot cause harm, everyone gives a little bit to make everything work for everyone.

It is trickier than it looks like. We might simplify them as "witches", but we're dealing with multiple groups. Some partially overlap (e.g. incels/misogynists vs. homophobic people), but some have almost nothing to do with each other, besides "they cause someone else harm". So it's actually a lot of work to prevent them from causing harm, to the point that it's inviable.