4 ms·
The paradox of tolerance is utterly vacuous. "Group X is justified in not tolerating group Y because of Y's intolerance of X." Fine, except it doesn't even mat
by ThrowawayR2 7y ago
The paradox of tolerance is utterly vacuous. "Group X is justified in not tolerating group Y because of Y's intolerance of X." Fine, except it doesn't even matter what X and Y is; it works just as well for your opponents as it does for you.
It's amazing that people still quote that XKCD despite the glaring logical fallacy.
- rhizome 7y agoWhat is the fallacy in saying you have to draw the line somewhere?
- erik_seaberg 7y agoPeople are all too eager to grant powers (to their favorite vendors as well as politicians) that can later be misused against them. They seem to forget that the other team also bats.
- rhizome 7y agoAh, "people." What are we going to do about them, right? I'm not sure you and Mr. Throwaway & Hide are talking about the same thing, but what I'm talking about is not to grant powers, to leave the game. I'm not sure how freezing someone out is supposed to give them more power, or increase their audience, or make their ideas any more viable, but using your enemies actions to determine your own is a form of ressentiment, what has been called a ruling principle of the lowest sort. It's related to reactionary behavior, tit-for-tat debate. There's nothing that says you have to participate in any of that.