• 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.

    • MenKlash@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Streptember@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SolarNialamide@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Chev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is much more nuanced 🙁

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

    • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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 "