3 ms·
It's still a hypocrisy, but so what. People say it like it's a damnation of the idea. Things in life are fuzzy, that's why it's literally called a paradox. T
by P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
It's still a hypocrisy, but so what.
People say it like it's a damnation of the idea. Things in life are fuzzy, that's why it's literally called a paradox.
The most tolerant people in the world are not going to be ok with a 20 year-old having a sexual relationship with their 12 year old daughter because of the danger involved. That's the paradox of intolerance, that everyone has a limit, and if you have no limit, someone else will pick it for you and cause damage on their terms.
We don't generally tolerate violence in the west. Yes, it's an intolerance, but it's for the greater stability of society.
but I have absolutely seen people use the paradox of tolerance to argue for some shitty opinions, so it must still be dealt with care. You can imagine a KKK member using it to defend their choice of not allowing blacks to be free of lynching.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoIt's ok to be intolerant at some things. What's not ok is to be intolerant and still claim to be tolerant. That's hypocrisy. Also, do not equate actions and speech - and we're mostly arguing about free speech here, right?
- giantrobot 4y ago
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoPeople feel very smart when making quips like this. Unfortunately for you, my goalpost is precisely the same: > "paradox of tolerance" is a hypocrisy. If you are intolerant only to the intolerant you are not tolerant, it is as simple as that. > It's ok to be intolerant at some things. What's not ok is to be intolerant and still claim to be tolerant. That's hypocrisy (Don't hurt yourself, I understand it is an uncomfortable situation for you)
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoWhen the only way for you to be "right" is to argue the absolutist version of the definition of a word (tolerant in this case), you've lost. Furthermore, such black and white thinking is often a sign of mental illness.