This only makes sense when I realize that to conservatives, it’s an identity. They think it’s an identity that Taylor Swift should have because she’s (presumably) white, popular, rich, good looking, Midwestern, Christian, etc.
To them politics is not about ideas, or policies, or problem solving, or good governance. It’s all about identity.
If you equivocate about the meaning of tolerance you can justify some bad things.
Can you provide any examples of this? Not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
Usually ‘tolerance’ is very poorly defined. Someone saying some vile shit? Time to physically attack them. So one intolerance is thought or speech, but the resulting intolerance is violence.
In some cases that’s fine, but people seem to think just saying “paradox of tolerance” is a tool that lets them strip others of their humanity without engaging in any actual ethical or philosophical discussion.
It’s words on the internet, though, so it’s not like most people will have a chance to actually test their poorly considered position, but they do end up saying some vile shit in defense of others at times.
I think you’re missing the point.
When someone is outwardly hateful toward others for things outside of their control (race, gender, ability), that’s generally viewed as intolerance.
Tolerance, is me recognizing you have the right to believe whatever you want, and letting you do so, as long as you’re not obstructing anyone else’s right to do the same.
The paradox is basically saying a negative reaction to a hateful behavior, is not itself hateful. Identity politics doesn’t agree, and makes those who identify as hateful (knowingly or not), feel hated.
Violence is a further escalation of things that the concept of tolerance inherently tries to avoid.
My comment very specifically addresses people that use the paradox to defend escalation.
I don’t think your interpretation is faulty in that way.