The funny thing is that there is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Contracts only protect people who are party to them. If you are bigoted or intolerant, you are not party to the social contract, and thus are not protected by it. There never was a paradox, it is just another thing that bigoted asshats use to try to muddy the waters.
As an aside; safety, tolerance, inclusion, and peace are all social contracts. These fuckers are not part of any of those contracts and thus deserve none of those things.
Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.
It’s a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems.
Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.
Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.
To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.
The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society. That’s it. When intolerant people abandon reason, you can no longer tolerate them in society.
You’re a fart sniffing social media philosopher I see
It’s fun watching people discover the paradox of tolerance in real time.
Women are sexually assaulted at rates that are fucking disturbing.
I’d punch you in the face in a heartbeat if you called my wife a whore. We don’t tolerate intolerance. Get with the program.
The funny thing is that there is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Contracts only protect people who are party to them. If you are bigoted or intolerant, you are not party to the social contract, and thus are not protected by it. There never was a paradox, it is just another thing that bigoted asshats use to try to muddy the waters.
As an aside; safety, tolerance, inclusion, and peace are all social contracts. These fuckers are not part of any of those contracts and thus deserve none of those things.
Yep, and apparently we have to scream it louder.
Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.
Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.
To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.
The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society. That’s it. When intolerant people abandon reason, you can no longer tolerate them in society.
You’re a fart sniffing social media philosopher I see
Oh you think im joking?