3 ms·
It's Karl Popper's tolerance paradox. > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually s
by chengiz 5y ago
It's Karl Popper's tolerance paradox.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- posterboy 5y agoHow is that even a paradox? It's simply speaking an optimization problem in two dependent variables, and it looks confusing because of an impossible premisses and the conflation of terms. Arriving at the paradox that an infinitely tolerant society can be also infinitely intolerant at the same time. Which is pretty much a given if intolerance and tolerance are axiomatically on the same scale (as the nameing of the terms would suggest). This is pretty much equivalent to this thread's topic, that a arbitrarily reasonable person may tell somebody they were not reasonable, not just slightly less reasonable or actually, reasonably bad, but just approachung zero reasonable, or infinite un-reasonable. But no, there's no logic in this.
- burnished 5y agoIts a paradox because a perfectly tolerant society would cease to function due to attacks from intolerant people subverting social mechanisms, that very tolerance of view point is what would enable it. Thus a completely tolerant society would need to violate its core principle in order to protect that principle.