I don’t want right-wing fanatics…I don’t want leftist fanatics…I want a place where all views can be discussed with respect and civility. /r/politics was NOT that place. I hope Lemmy can avoid the echo chamber to allow respectful disagreement and discourse to occur (while not overly defending extremists on either side).

I like to believe there is much more we agree upon than disagree…and while not always the case, sometimes we need to take a moment to ensure we aren’t talking passed each other and be willing to listen to understand (even if you don’t agree in the end). It’s okay to disagree as long as you respect one another.

“If you want to be heard, first learn to listen.” - John F. Kennedy

  • DevCat@lemmy.world
    3·
    1 year ago

    Have you ever heard of the Paradox of Tolerance?

    Less well known [than other paradoxes] 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 most 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

    • carlyman@lemmy.mlOP
      3·
      1 year ago

      Popper’s Paradox of tolerance underscores the need for thoughtful consideration, but it doesn’t dismiss the importance of civil discourse. Popper himself called for the “tolerance of the intolerant” within the bounds of rational criticism highlights that while we acknowledge the limits of tolerance, engaging in respectful dialogue remains crucial. By upholding civil discourse, challenging ideas through reasoned arguments, and embracing Popper’s notion, we can maintain a tolerant society while fostering understanding and progress.

      • DevCat@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        As he says:

        …as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise

        This would, of course, require that they make their argument in good faith. Unfortunately, this is an ability that has too often eluded the right wing.

        • carlyman@lemmy.mlOP
          3·
          1 year ago

          I guess for me…folks should try to assume good intentions at the start. I often find (any/all sides) quickly put up defenses, presume the worst, and find ways to be insulted where they wouldn’t have if they were also behaving in good faith. Assholes exist, but let them prove that they are first.

          • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
            2·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I agree. Let them prove it first. But too many “enlightened centrists” place the bar for proof so high that it’s impossible. When Democrats conceded 95% of Republicans’ demands in the 2015 budget, Republicans complained about not getting the entire 100% and centrists said “we should listen to them.”

            There comes a point where the fetish for civility goes too far. We’ve long passed that in US politics.