cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6541859

Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

  • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    However, to ban the intolerant makes you intolerant. You would be persecuting the intolerant. I would argue that action would make you more intolerant than the intolerant people you are persecuting.

    This is the Enlightened Centrist nonsense that this post is addressing.

    • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      So, what you just typed there is called an ad hominem fallacy. It’s where you assault my character to try and make me seem less credible while contributing nothing to the discussion.

      In other words. Even if I were a centrist. If I’m correct. I’m still correct.

      • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        No, your character is not being assaulted, the already-addressed-by-the-post argument you’re presenting is. You’re simply regurgitating the Paradox of Tolerance again.

        • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          This post literally is the Paradox of Tolerance. I simply pointed out that every time I see this posted. They always stop at “the paradox is that intolerance can’t be tolerated”. But no solutions past that are given.

          So, I was exploring what comes after we know that intolerance can’t be tolerated. I commented with 2 separate outcomes that I could think of, and both of them are deeply flawed. You latched on to one of them.