I'm all for it, but what kicked it off?
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
824 points (98.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
44475 readers
528 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Group A: "I am intolerant of (group) because they need to go back to their own country and not live in mine."
Group B: "I am intolerant of (group) because they don't tolerate other ethnicities."
This guy: "but who was intolerant first?"
Wrong question. It doesn't matter who was "first".
If the first group stops, the problem is gone.
If the second group stops, the problem is not gone but likely growing.
You both completely miss the argument. Cile is strawmanning, vas is again viewing from the omniscient or opposing viewpoint.
Virtually all intolerants perceive themselves as victims. Permitting "intolerance of intolerance" is just accelerationist, "might makes right" ideology.
This just feels like an enlightened centrist take or worse, playing cover for bigotry.
Cile is less strawmanning and more exemplifying the absurdity of applying this mentality to literal Nazis and white supremacists.
Can you give an example of your assertion, historical or imagined, where we SHOULDN'T act against acts of intolerance due to some muddying factor?
Ultimately, my argument is that the "paradox of tolerance" is intellectually dishonest answer to cognitive dissonance. It's refusing to accept responsibility for selecting in-groups and out-groups.
It's not prescriptive. These divisions are a natural conclusion of moral systems. Acting on these divisions is a natural conclusion of other moral systems.