There is no paradox of tolerance. It's the social contract of tolerance. Break the social contract, receive the consequences.
Edit: I promise I understand the concept as a paradox as well. I chose to frame it the way I did because the paradox is solved by reframing the situation.
It's a paradox. Lots of paradoxes that have solutions in math, science, and philosophy are still called paradoxes. The name doesn't drop just because it's resolved. It just means that when you first approach it, it seems to defy what you know.
There is a paradox in limitless tolerance. Applying a social contract makes it limited, removing the paradox.
The paradox is that tolerating intolerance leads to intolerance replacing tolerance.
I don't know what your issue with the paradox of tolerance is. Even in your "solution" it is ultimately true that there is the paradox of tolerance.
The paradox is that a maximally tolerant society has to be intolerant to the intolerant.
Breaking the social contract would make you intolerant and the tolerant people who follow the social contract would have to be intolerant towards you to protect the social contract as just removing the necessity of tolerance towards the intolerant wouldn't create a deterrent as the tolerant people mostly would treat the intolerant decently as they aren't bad people and wouldn't inflict unnecessary harm. So you need to communicate to the tolerant people that they have to be intolerant towards the intolerant to protect the social contract, so the tolerant would inflict the necessary harm to the intolerant to create a deterrent.
So to maximize the effects of the social contract, the social contract would require intolerance from the tolerant.
But that's how the "contract" explanation "solves" the paradox. Nobody is inherently tolerant. I'm just tolerant towards you because our social contract ensures mutual tolerance. One "clause" of the contract is however that I don't have to be tolerant towards you if you breach the contract with anyone else. Or in other words, if I see you being intolerant, I have the right to be intolerant towards you, too. Whether I'm "obliged" to be intolerant towards you is another question, but you could construe it as another "clause" of the social contract.
GP is probably working off a common and wrong definition of "paradox". It's often thought of as something that's logically inconsistent and cannot be resolved, but that's not how the word is actually used. Rather, it's something that seems logically inconsistent, but it can be resolved, and we have to hunt around for a solution. In this case, the solution is to think of tolerance as a peace treaty that binds people who agree with it.
Tolerance for somebody who wants you to die because you aren’t a perfect aryan master race chad. Make it make sense.
Batman, Spider-Man, Doctor Who
refused to kill due to morals, trauma, and setting an example for what societies should be.
Didn't work. The ones they spared would constantly escape and just kill more and more people.
You dont have to be tolerant of intollerance imho.
That's why I used that headline.
I know ;)
In fact, you should not be.
I hate the concept of tolerance; it necessarily implies that you have a grievance against that person. If you have no grievances against someone, then it would be absurd to say that you're tolerating them. Anybody who feels that they have to TOLERATE someone just because they sport a different skin color, sexual orientation, or sexual identity is someone that I have a grievance against.
TL:DR - Nazi lives don't matter, and "tolerance" is not a virtue.
I don't quite agree with the latter part. We all have to live together in a society, meaning we all have to tolerate each other to some extent. Where that ends, however, is when the person we are tolerating is intolerant of other people. They've broken that basic social contract at that point.
Be as racist at home alone as you want (spreading it to your kids is another issue). If you want to dress up like an SS officer and march in front of the mirror, that's your business.
You take out the uniform and start goosestepping where I can see it, no. I won't tolerate that.
But that's the thing, though - living together with other people imposes no particular hardship. It's when people behave badly that there are issues. For example, your racist person. You might consider it pretty harmless that someone likes to dance to Wagner in their home while wearing an authentic SS uniform so long as they don't show that part of themselves to others... but people aren't able to cordon themselves off like that. No matter how compartmentalized you think your personality is, it leaks out around the seams. Mr. Wehraboo there would absolutely behave differently towards black people than he would towards someone who looks like a poster child for the Aryan race, and that's a fucking problem. I see no good reason why anybody should tolerate him.
It harkens to the days when politics was a disagreement of “how best to help people”. Now, it’s a disagreement of whether to help people.
Americans are tolerant of so much shit. Sure we draw a line but how you found it is beyond me.
Is this a new Worms game? I'd play it. I used to be insane with the bazooka and nades.
Yeah, that game was rad! I hated the cartoony rubbish they moved to, but it was still fun
No tolerance for intolerance
I love all the people who try to say I have double standards when it comes to people getting ear injuries.
Its not that I have double standards, it's that none of the fascist dictator wannabes I've seen almost get their head blown off simply don't meet that standard.
Hold on. I get tolerance to Nazis is not something societies should procure, but I personally will take anyone holding a banner, no matter how stupid it is, against anyone holding a weapon against whatever they find stupid.
Of course, if those holding banners start grabbing guns, that's another thing.
EDIT: to all your rabid replies, understand one thing: I don't support racist ideas. I do prefer stupid people with banners rather than stupid people with weapons. It's not that hard to understand.
If you don't think just holding a sign on a pole is dangerous, go watch some January 6th footage.
Found the Nazi Sympathizer.
So how many levels of indirection is okay: (The following are sarcastic statements being made for the purposes of examples)
Banner 1: “I’M GONNA SHOOT A BABY WITH A GUN.”
Banner 2: “I support Banner 1.”
Banner 3: “I support the person holding Banner 1 and their right to make statements of any kind.”
Banner 4: “I don’t like the hyperbole of claiming that anyone is getting threatened.”
Banner 5: “I support Banner 2.”
Banner 6: “Cheese tastes good sometimes.”
Banner 7: “Both banners, including Banner 1 and Banner 6, need to tone down their rhetoric and are just as bad.”
Banner 8: “Banner 2 was attacked just for holding a banner. Free speech doesn’t exist anymore. Hostility is out of control.”How about gerrymandering your vote away so that it’s ineffective, upending the political system checks and balances, and now they can rule with a minority and never fire a shot?
Still good with that? Just shrug and say they did it within the limits of the system we have, we’re fucked, congrats you gamed the system and won?
So if a group unrolls a banner here saying where you live and the top 5 things that make your life meaningful and how to destroy those things, you would support their right to do that? A Nazi symbol is an endorsement of such tactics and should be treated as such.
Don't sympathize with Nazis.
