EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
It’s intriguing how everyone that views themselves as moderates/liberals forget (or are unacquainted with it) about the paradox of tolerance.
Tolerance implies everyone has a right to express their ideas and you want that. You want everything out in the open, so you can pick at it, dismantle it and render it pitiful, ridiculous and useless.
You want the intolerant crying out loud that you are intolerant as that means you are doing the right thing. The intolerant want silence, forced, while the tolerant want noise, anger, tension.
Remember that anything worthwhile needs to be fought for. Don’t regret being vocal and harsh towards intolerance.
That is a pretty ironic comment because that is not what the paradox of tolerance is at all. The paradox of tolerance is that intolerance needs to be suppressed for tolerance to exist, since tolerance can’t exist alongside intolerance.
The paradox is that tolerance needs to be intolerant towards intolerance in order for a tolerant society to exist, literally the exact opposite of what you wrote.
And in order to do that you need intolerants to speak up, so that their rethoric can dismantled.
Not a hard concept to grasp.
actually both definitions are right. hence the name, paradox.
paradox does not mean ‘has two definitions’. It means the ONE definition contains a contraction, i.e. ‘tolerance needs to be intolerant towards intolerance in order for a tolerant society to exist’ contains a contradiction.
Really can’t agree that qyron is right, doesn’t seem to know what the paradox of tolerance is