I think you have it backwards, the paradox of tolerance is the idea that we must be intolerant towards the intolerant, rather than showing tolerance freely to even those that wish us harm. It is seemingly a paradox because it says that to spread tolerance we have to actually be intolerant towards a specific group.
The person who made this is either a troll or a fascist, and to me it doesn’t really matter which. Poisoning the meanings of words and theories is an old, old fascist trick and that’s all that’s happening here.
You can acknowledge that it’s a paradox then shrug your shoulders and tell them, “I guess I’m a hypocrite too. Fuck Nazis.”
That’s what I do.
🤷🏻♂️ Fuck Nazis.
I am vast. I contain multitudes.
you should read the article linked in the post, i hope you can reconsider this accusation :)
[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
I think he’s referring to the conflating of tolerance with acceptance of intolerance that is implied by the image text
Although according to someone else’s comment, it actually is even darker than that.
And that “paradox” boils down to the intolerant saw of “you’re not tolerant if you’re not tolerant of intolerance”
It’s a paradox b/c it’s not really a paradox, but it seems like one, when couched disingenuously.
But it’s like freedom. Can you really believe in freedom if you believe in law and punishment?* But can you truly be free with criminals running amok? So to have freedom, you must restrict freedom of those who would take away your freedom.
* I’m well aware lots of ppl say “no” here
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement which is actually not a contradiction if you look closely. That’s why it’s named like this. Being intolerant towards fascists and other intolerant groups is actually a way to promote tolerance, it’s a tolerant act.
It’s not a tolerant act, but the result is that the base level of tolerance is higher, so it’s an acceptable compromise.
But it’s like freedom. Can you really believe in freedom if you believe in law and punishment?* But can you truly be free with criminals running amok? So to have freedom, you must restrict freedom of those who would take away your freedom.
The part you’re missing here is that there are two kinds of freedom: freedom to do things, and freedom from things being done to you.
Neither can be absolute, there is always a balance between the two.
that was my point. they both have the same quasi-paradox aspect because they are misconstrued as absolutes.
deleted by creator
If varRhetoric = “racist” then {beatNaziAss}
deleted by creator
The paradox of tolerance actually means NOT to be okay with that.
deleted by creator
Are those minorities fascists?
Can someone explain this one to me?
OK, the Paradox of Tolerance is a Karl Popper social theory about how society should feel about its subgroups, and made recently famous again in a comic, although I don’t think the comic context is relevant to this meme.
The basic idea is that if we tolerate absolutely every subgroup, then we are logically also tolerating the existence of fascists and other types of subgroups that want or promote intolerance. If one of these groups (let’s say, Nazis) is tolerated by society, it may gain control–indeed, to Popper, this is inevitable–and society becomes intolerant again. So paradoxically, tolerating everything led to the collapse of tolerance itself.
His remedy is that we must not tolerate the intolerant, we must extinguish groups like that through various means. To be clear, Popper is NOT saying we must kill or commit violence against the members of those groups, just that we must make sure the group structure itself is dismantled as it’s being built in every case. And here we get to the rather terrible point being made by the meme. “Minorities”, as the meme puts it, would be the Nazi group from the earlier example, because their viewpoint is a minority. And Popper isn’t promoting violence against them, unless you consider the enforcement of laws to be inherently violent. (A valid point of view, but very far from what the meme is suggesting.)
no sorry, i think my rhetoric was not clear in this meme i definitely need to work on this
see TheSaneWriter’s comment for an accurate representation of the position i mean to take.
People are focusing on the image rather than the link. (as have I). Mainly because it is bigger and prettier and-- ooh, shiny thing!
The paradox of tolerance isn’t a paradox. This meme’s body says “Tolerance is not a moral precept - Yonatan Zunger”, which essentially means that tolerance isn’t a fundamental moral belief, it springs forth from other beliefs and because of that is not absolute. The meme itself is saying that arguments that use the paradox of tolerance are just a proxy, that what the person using the argument is trying to argue for is that people should be ok with their bigotry. How I personally conceive of tolerance is that it’s a social contract, where if one side chooses to break the contract then the other side no longer has to obey it either.
Oh okay. I can read I that way now, when looking at it that way.
Usually I’ve seen this “paradox” in the context how how you shouldn’t tolerate intolerance.
Ah, fair enough. I suppose to be technical, saying you shouldn’t tolerate intolerance is a semantic paradox but not a logical one.
appreciably sane and concise summary of the position illustrated in the meme. thank u TheSaneWriter keep up the good work 👍
No problem, I’m glad to help 👍
My take is that instead of being intolerant of intolerance (the paradox), they want to be an edge lord sack o’ shit and be intolerant of things other than intolerance. “To be cool.”
ouch this hurts my feelings
Yep. The idea of a paradox of tolerance is that, if you believe tolerance to be a moral precept, then you inherently will be tolerating others intolerant actions, speech, etc. Not sure why this is a thing, unless it’s meant to dunk on the idea that people should strive for being tolerant of others.
That said, the article is correctly pointing out that tolerance is not a moral precept, but rather a social contract To exercise tolerance need not implicitly accept intolerant behaviors of others. Intolerance exhibited from others is a break in such a contract. The contract requires willing participants in tolerance.
Agreed
It seems like they’re using the format backwards, right?
Edit: maybe not backwards, but it just doesn’t seem to make sense.
