EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
That is a pretty ironic comment because that is not what the paradox of tolerance is at all. The paradox of tolerance is that intolerance needs to be suppressed for tolerance to exist, since tolerance can’t exist alongside intolerance.
The paradox is that tolerance needs to be intolerant towards intolerance in order for a tolerant society to exist, literally the exact opposite of what you wrote.
actually both definitions are right. hence the name, paradox.
paradox does not mean ‘has two definitions’. It means the ONE definition contains a contraction, i.e. ‘tolerance needs to be intolerant towards intolerance in order for a tolerant society to exist’ contains a contradiction.
Really can’t agree that qyron is right, doesn’t seem to know what the paradox of tolerance is
And in order to do that you need intolerants to speak up, so that their rethoric can dismantled.
Not a hard concept to grasp.
Absolutely incorrect
Tolerance can perfectly exist without intolerance.
It’s called peace.
Intolerance is the antithesis to peace. Intolerance directly causes the opposite of peace.
Peace is not a static state. Our society is not static, hence opinions and schools of thought change and flow.
It’s not hard to find countries at peace where intolerance speach has been on the rise, often replacing tolerant and peace leaning and peace loving regimes.
It was a passive tolerance that allowed for such intolerant currents to rise, currents that are now doing their best to drown the previous.
I’m remembering the need to repel intolerance by pulling its ideas out in the open, pull it apart and dismantle it, in a context of peace. I am not advocating for violence. What I am advocating for is the need to use the necessary force to snuff out intolerance.