You must log in or register to comment.
It’s more like:
- “Besides finding it very important to follow the laws (regardless of what they mean or who they could benefit, but that’s what many people think means being moral), I don’t really believe in anything nor think about anything in depth, so I’m just gonna regurgitate the same propaganda you’ve been fed” -> 😁
- anything besides that -> 😠
Absolutely fucking agree.
Except when it comes to landlords. Somehow those are always bad.
I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, and car pollution gives kids asthma, so we should ban cars.
I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, so children should be euthanized to ensure they experience as little pain as possible. /s
Never get into the details, that’s where the devil is.
I should start just depicting my opinions as the Chad and other people’s opinions as the Soyjak and leaving it at that
Insert one shibboleth, like one bit of information critically wrong intentionally. Make lists of users who point it out for HR.
“I am a socialist” vs “We need to round up anyone with glasses and kill them because they are bourgeoisie.”
Yes. Socialism is killing people with glasses.
That’s slander, he just hated nerds.
Who doesn’t? Fucking nerds.
What about sunglasses? It’s too bright outside of the basement, I need them to see!
Kulac detected
How very CPK of you
California Pizza Kitchen?
It’s the initials of the khmer rouge comunist party. Pole pot was the communist dictator that would kill you if you had glasses.
The only thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance…
…I think it is morally sound to remove someone from society if that someone is an intolerant, fascist, greedy bigot. What constitutes as “remove” is contingent on how intolerant, fascist, and greedy the subject has exhibited themselves to be.
…murder is OK, in some scenarios.
Murder is ok in self defense. Extrapolate as necessary.
You misunderstand the point of this paradox. By default you become intolerant when you start “removing” people. it is explicitly not a justification for whatever action you claim moral superiority on.
Since almost every political decision will affect at least some fraction of society negatively (even if it would ethically be for the greater good), you can carelessly throw this around to eliminate any opponents for this arbitrary tolerance reason. The only way to make sure the “removal” is fair, as a society absolutely needs these tools to function, is to clearly outline the case when it needs to happen and bring the barrier such that those capable of improvement do not get ostracized into further radicalization. And that barrier needs to be significant.
You bring up “fascist”, at which line does it happen? Genocide execution, support, inaction, Swastika wearing, illegal membership, legal membership of ultra radical parties, support of conservative oligarchs? What is greedy? Robbery, theft, tax evasion, corruption, cheating with the girlfriend of a friend? What is bigotry? You get the idea.
It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
Welcome to social contract theory.
That’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
It isn’t a paradox, or it doesn’t have to be. It isn’t a seemingly false or untrue statement that belies a deeper meaning.
It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
Chemically tolerance means the limit at which something begins to degrade or an organism has to/begins to adapt. This is at least what I interpret with what is being brought up with tolerance of intolerance: when adaptation or degradation is required, the limits of tolerance have been reached.
It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.
As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a “removal” would be required.
the “paradox” as the user above pointed out, simply isn’t a paradox at all:
“A” = “not A” is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.
and that’s all that the “paradox” really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.
it boils down to “you can’t have it both ways”, and that is the intended meaning.
i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a “paradox” rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.
in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.
there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it’s simply a logical conclusion.
it’s kind of like the whole misunderstanding of “theory” vs “hypothesis” leading to the now-common “evolution is just a theory” among religious fundamentalists.
“it’s just a theory” is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there’s nothing hypothetical about it.
in a similar vein, the “paradox” is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.
and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word “paradox” they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.
and that assumption of “paradox = dilemma” is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.
popper called the conclusion “paradoxical”, which isn’t the same as something being an actual paradox.
i really wish they’d used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer…
Turns out: morality is relative.
I’ve never considered it a paradox, more of an irony.
…but yes I was oversimplifying for funsies. “Bash the fash” as they say.
