• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2025

help-circle



  • It’s something we’re not going to solve in a Lemmy comment thread, but this “paradox of tolerance” is something governments the world over struggle with.

    And you are correct in saying that bad actors will find a way to leverage any perceived weakness (tolerance, kindness, decency) against you, because they experience no moral or social repercussions for doing so. It’s the same reason something like the “Gish gallop” works, if you face no repercussions for lying exploiting the societal framework against your opponent by shifting the onus onto them to stay truthful and refute your lies mean you get to shift the burden of work to them, meaning it’s easier and faster to lie and keep lying.

    And yes, you are also correct on how curtailing speech by legislation can be a slippery slope, malicious actors will likely leverage whatever you come up with to curtail hate speech and inciting of violence against their targets groups into the exact thing they will use to then attack the liberties of those groups with. I just don’t think not doing anything and letting societal repercussions do the job for us is working all to well either (see the rise of Nazi and other extremist right-wing ideologies).



  • While you are not wrong, the enemy of “perfect” should not be “good”.

    In this case, presuming folks get into a new vehicle ever 4-5 years on average (I know the number is skewing more toward 6-7 in the US, but the point stands) having them switch to a car that has a slightly higher production impact but makes up for it after the first 1.5 years of ownership still means we achieve net lower emissions. There are numerous studies showing that EVs, even when used on less clean electricity sources, drastically reduce total lifetime emissions compared to combustion engine vehicles.

    And let’s not forget that we can power EVs using renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro) which is just an economically and environmentally more sustainable practice than the single-use burning of a bunch of hydrocarbons.


  • While I don’t disagree in principle on the importance of freedom of expression, there are edge cases like these where it becomes hard to justify the potential societal harm associated with certain types of speech.

    Take your example - if we have more Nazis publicly express their hateful beliefs we risk normalizing their ideology, meaning that calling folks out for being a Nazi starts to lose it’s effectiveness to the point of it becoming just another political belief. So all your pictures and stuff you are proposing cease to be effective, and may even act as further normalization of their hateful speech. All the while making the Nazi’s target demographics feel more insecure and ostracized in society.

    As I said in my top comment, I strongly believe the tolerance of intolerance is, in itself, normalizing, promoting, and condoning intolerance. So while you are free to say what you want, once that crosses a line of inciting acts of violence or promoting discrimination, we should stop treating it as expression and consider it equivalent or at least related to committing an act of either.

    If we don’t we end up with Nazi Germany before long.









  • This is at least in large part how the locking down of smartphones began. People either weren’t around yet or don’t remember how much of a wild west smartphones were for malware, scams, etc. when they first reached mass market uptake. There was a while there where companies were blocking smartphones from their networks because of the security risks.

    It took Apple and their closely integrated/walled garden approach and insistence to sway the perception. And that’s what other manufacturers then decided to emulate.