If you tolerate intolerant views, sometimes society will collapse into intolerance as those views become prevalent.
Therefore, tolerance is self-undermining.
This is dumb because (1) is just false. You don’t have to give a fancy theoretical reason distinguishing between moral and social facts: just reject the premise.
but 3 & 4 already problematize absolute tolerance? how does one read through those points and come away with the idea society should be tolerant of nazis? :jesse-wtf:
I’m so confused because I knew all of this but still don’t understand how that can be used to further anyone’s ideology but ours.
The whole reason you bring up the paradox of tolerance is to tell liberals “No, we can’t allow the fascists to speak, we need to beat the shit out of them because if you don’t they’ll break everything”
How do you read this and come away with the conclusion “we must have absolute tolerance”?
It’s a (supposed) paradox in the following sense:
This is dumb because (1) is just false. You don’t have to give a fancy theoretical reason distinguishing between moral and social facts: just reject the premise.
but 3 & 4 already problematize absolute tolerance? how does one read through those points and come away with the idea society should be tolerant of nazis? :jesse-wtf:
:freeze-peach:
I’m so confused because I knew all of this but still don’t understand how that can be used to further anyone’s ideology but ours.
The whole reason you bring up the paradox of tolerance is to tell liberals “No, we can’t allow the fascists to speak, we need to beat the shit out of them because if you don’t they’ll break everything”
How do you read this and come away with the conclusion “we must have absolute tolerance”?