4 ms·
The Paradox of Tolerance said that people have, based on their right to self-defense, the ability to defend themselves against those who would shut down speech
by Natsu 4y ago
The Paradox of Tolerance said that people have, based on their right to self-defense, the ability to defend themselves against those who would shut down speech with fists or pistols.
In short, it's aimed at protecting people from literal brown shirt tactics of assaulting people for speaking. Those invoking it now are pretty far afield from what it espouses.
- immibis 4y agoThe word "would" indicates targets who haven't committed the crime yet, so I'd say it's being used correctly.
- OrangeMonkey 4y agoI'm sorry but no. We cannot silence others who are using their soap boxes by saying 'if they dont get their way they will use the ammo boxes so we should shut them up first.' Based on the paradox of tolerance, they should pre-emptively try to silence us because we are trying to shut down communication. You know this goes both ways right?
- Natsu 4y agoThe word "would" is me describing a kind of person willing to do a thing, not a guaranteed future action. Also, it's kinda weird to hang on a word not in the original quote: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. If someone is preemptively attacking people because of what they "might" do, then they're turning this completely on its head. Can you tell me more about why you want to live in a world where people are assaulted for pre-crime? Which pre-crime is eligible? If pre-crime is illegal now, would you support yourself getting assaulted for promoting it?