This is what the paradox of tolerance is all about. Extending tolerance to those who are intolerant of others only serves to enable the rise and eventual dominance of intolerance, thus undermining the original principle. The only way to combat this is (ironically) to be intolerant of such behaviour on both a cultural and systemic level.
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
74 points (84.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
48158 readers
1054 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is no paradox once you realize that it is not a law, but a social contract.
Those that are intolerant remove themselves from the social contract, and are no longer protected by it. This then allows them to be no longer tolerated by the tolerant, preserving that contract for those who obey it.
Yeah, honestly when viewed this (the correct) way it becomes ridiculous to call it a paradox at all.
Tolerate everything except intolerance.
hate speech isnt, because it just promotes violence, discrimination against minorities, and it further perpetuates the bigotry.
No, it should not. "My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights." is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.
What human right does hate speech infringe upon? No one has, or needs, the right to be unoffended, imo.
Obviously, violent rhetoric is notwithstanding.
So hate speech is non-violent rhetoric to you?
And it is more about "just don't offend" than about the individual levels of feeling offended.
There are many levels. Someone saying "I hate foreigners" or "I hate fascists" or "I hate capitalists" or "I hate gays" or "I hate cars" or "I hate science denialism" or "I hate AI" or "I hate health insurance CEOs"...that's all very different than saying "I think all (take your pick)s should be killed." Don't you think? All I'm saying is, it's just about the most subjective thing your trying to codify and it's just not possible, reasonable, or to society to do so, imo.
"Just don't offend" is a huge leap from "My freedom ends where someone else's rights start". It's impossible not to offend somebody on this planet just by existing, and some opinions deserve the public shame that offends the people who have them.
It is amazing that for you, being able to spread hate seems to be a fundamental, inviolable human right.
Ad hominem fallacy.
He isn't saying that spreading hate is something that should be done or that it is good; rather, he is merely stating that there is a huge logical, epistemological, and ontological leap between "I hate X" (whatever that X represents) and "we should kill X" or "X should die."
Moreover, offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech. Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
Of course you can always find one person that is offended. That's beside the point. The point is that communication in the US: broadcast media, politics, social media, etc., is far from "just offending someone". And that happens because nobody even cares about even "we should kill X" level messages anymore. They have become close to the new normal. It is a violent society going down a hate spiral at the moment, and being lenient on the perpetrators is not going to make it better.
Oh, also straw-man fallacy.
It's amazing that for you, mischarachterization of my stance counts as making a point. I bet you "win" every argument you get in. Have fun in the non-existent black-and-white world you crave, completely devoid of nuance or understanding of subjectivity! I'll be over here in reality 😘
yes it should be protected but depending on the size of the audience it should have a duty to correct itself if it contains untruths and if it incites any violence the person that said it who's identity will be attached to it will be arrested
I don't know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: "My freedom ends where the next person's freedom starts." We can do everything we want as long it doesn't harm or encroach (and "harm" and "encroach" are loaded words in this context) on the next person. "Harm" and "encroach" here means you don't diminish the other persons rights, at all.
"At all" is kinda contradictory part. Limiting harm to others would already necessitate limiting freedoms and the more people and closer together they live the more freedoms are limited.
Living in the middle of nowhere and a person can do almost whatever pops in their mind, almost absolute freedom.
Living in a city and there's a long list of laws/rules/regulations that already limit what one can do. Not that those are bad limitations.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Forgive my ignorance, but how can words infringe on the rights of others? As a member of a minority class with several hateful and hurtful slurs (that were on their way to becoming hate speech prior to the second Trump administration) I understand that some folks can get very upset but I don't think anyone has the right to not be upset. I could be misunderstanding something though.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.
In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.
Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.
Imagine living in Queensland rn. Where the phrase “from the river to the sea” is banned…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-05/qld-hate-speech-laws-passed-parliament/106420306
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Stochastic terrorism should be a crime. As it is, only if it's from the left. The right wing media as well as the current occupant of the executive branch, get away with it regularly.
they fear anything that is "left" of far right, it threatens thier grip on power.
It really depends on who defines what hate speech is.
Is questioning the Zionist genocide hate speech? Is being an outspoken socialist hate speech against capitalists? Is stating you want to separate church and state hateful against Christians? Is supporting Palestine hate speech in the UK?
I'm a fan of free speech. Unless it is literally inciting violence or panic.
It's fucked up innocent people holding Palestine action signs are being arrested in the UK. Attacking free speech is what leads to situations like that.
I feel like this is the only right answer and even then who decides what "inciting violence" is. As disgusting as it gets the only free speech in my mind is 100% free speech. Anything less is just free attack surface for those looking to oppress.
Yes because otherwise you can shut down speech you dislike by labeling it "hate speech"
Canada restricts hate speech, as does most of Europe.
Yet its the US with the speech suppression issues going on right now.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think that if something is made illegal, it should be very clearly defined. "Hate speech" is wide open to interpretation and can easily be used to silence all kinds of speech. The issue isn't the obvious cases but where exactly we draw the line. If that line can't be made crystal clear, it's a slippery slope toward tyranny. Being offensive is okay - spreading hate and inciting violence isn't.
If it were not, it would just be inviting the government take a massive dump all over it.
Despite the crapshow that is the current US government, you can't be arrested for standing in front of the Whitehouse shouting your support for whatever idea or group you beleive in (granted you are a Citizen of the USA).
Compare that to something like the UK where people have been charged and thrown in jail for wearing a t shirt or holding a sign, even outside of a protest because the government can just designate whatever it wants to be "hate speech".
Private spaces like social media are not bound by this which is fine, but social media is so ridiculously controlled and filtered as a result, that you're better off sticking to a non mainstream platform (like lemmy) where your comments won't get banned and deleted for stepping out of line.
load more comments
(3 replies)
just a reminder- the 1st amendment is an amendment. When the people running things on behalf of their monied backers want to change things, they can change them and will.
your right to speech is not something an amendment can create or remove.
we already have laws against inciting violence, so there’s that.
but when uncle sam says you are no longer allowed to say “fuck israel and zionism” - remember, you are in the right to to say it.
Everybody should be able to say anything they want, and everybody else should be able to make fun of them.
Or choose not to hire them, or ostracize them.
Hate speech is free speech. So is recording that hate speech and making sure that everyone the bigot knows is aware of their bigotry is free speech too.
load more comments
(4 replies)
By voluntary associations (like a fediverse instance) absolutely not.
By government? Absolutely. What happens when disparaging the One True God Baby Jesus or His Followers is declared hate speech?
Whatever powers you give the government, you also give to the worst form of that government which you can imagine. The civil liberties that protect rapists and drug dealers are the same ones that are helping keep more people from being kidnapped by ICE in America.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes.
They should be encouraged to say whatever they want to say.
What they really want isn't freedom of speech but freedom from consequence. And that's something they shouldn't have.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Can you think of a useful purpose it serves?
If it already is, because it had already been decided. People once again misunderstand what exactly the 1st Amendment even covers. It protects you from the government silencing your voice and expression, which is what someone like Trump has been working hard to do.
It does not and should not protect you outside from that. You do not have a case on your hands when you're banned from an online forum for using hate speech. Because that forum, is not the government. Facebook, is not the government. Reddit, is not the government. So on and so forth.
I really wonder how many people in this thread have ever had hate speech directed at themselves.
Theyre also ignoring that the government is ultimately who will decide what hate speech is, not common sense. They could very easily decide “anti christian ideology,” such as lgbtq people existing, is hate speech.
Yes - not because I particularly like the idea of bigoted speech, but because like most Governments have already started to demonstrate over age verification, any tool of censorship you allow to be used against your enemy will eventually be turned back against you
Yes. I don’t trust anyone to draw the line on what does or doesn’t count as hate speech.
Now, calls to violence are little more black-and-white. I can see a ban on that.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›