The whole “tolerance paradox” can be solved by a very simple fact: Those that seek to break the social contract we all live under do not get afforded the benefits of said social contract.
By the very nature of trying to break/corrupt it you have nullified it for yourself. And until you are willing to abide by it again, you face the same punishment as those that break any of our laws. Your rights restricted, confinement, financial penalties, etc.
Melkath@kbin.social 1 year ago
Simple math.
Intolerance(-) of intolerance(-) is(=) tolerance(+).
Tolerance(+) of intolerance(-) is(=) intolerance(+).
Tolerance(+) of tolerance(+) is(=) tolerance(+).
Stamets@startrek.website 1 year ago
Image
CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 1 year ago
I love this community so much.
Gabu@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That time Spock heard about Daft Punk.
NielsBohron@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Also called The Paradox of Tolerance, as explained by Karl Popper (one of my favorite philosophers).
Although, as you showed, there are several ways to illustrate that it’s not really a paradox. My favorite is to consider that tolerance is a social contract entered into by every participant; those who are intolerant are breaching that contact and are therefore not protected by it.
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.
Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.
Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.