this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
528 points (100.0% liked)

196

16238 readers
1700 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 60 points 10 months ago (6 children)

There actually is no paradox if you think of this way:

Be tolerant of ideas that harm nobody.

Be intolerant of ideas that harm others.

"I'm gay." <- Tolerable.

"I'm not gay, so I won't date men." <- Tolerable.

"I'm not gay, so I think we should kill all gay people." <- Intolerable.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The dilemma is how you define harming others and what implies being intolerant to an idea rather than a person holding that idea.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Harm is a pretty solid metric. Not some imaginary "think of the children" harm, but the "this disturbs/literally harms me" kind.

Yes, some people are precious little weirdos that won't want to see anything. The question then falls to society to determine if it was ultimately tolerable if they bring up grievance. Then the paradox comes in because the general vibes are always a moving target.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sorry but no, it's not in any way solid. Some think of what they see as sinful as harmful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

No, sin is wholly different than harm.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Beliefs and personal convictions muck that up a bit though.

There's a sadly significant portion of people who truly believe that being gay is hurting other people.

Whether they believe it only because they were told to or for some personal reason, they believe it nonetheless.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A gay person existing doesn't actually literally harm anyone though. A homphobe shouting slurs at a gay person, excluding them from vital social, economic or whatever activity or beating them up does very concretely harm someone. It's not that difficult.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean people can't believe that it does.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The problem with this is that people disagree about what harms others. Right wing insane people are not living in the same reality that you and I are. They genuinely believe that even seeing a gay person is harmful. They genuinely believe that the existence of gay people is harmful to others.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well no, there are objective harms and subjective harms.

If I slap you that's an objective harm.

If I'm gay and that's objectional to you, that's a subjective harm to some people.

Essentially physical acts v emotional harms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Some people may see all morales as God given and therefore absolute

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Perhaps absolute but still not objective. I can prove things that are objective with repetition, subjective things not so much.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It is much more nuanced 🙁

By your logic almost every human would be intolerant. Big example is eating and exploiting animals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I'll let you figure it out :3

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Yes. I think harm is an excellent way to qualify it. As the old saying goes " if it ain't harm none do as thou mote "

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

or more succinctly: an ye harm none, do what ye will