Exactly, there was this thing that always happened and that everyone would agree always happened. Then a philosopher came along and said, “It’s a paradox!” A paradox, at very minimum, should appearson it’s face appears as if it shouldn’t be true. Your statement of the paradox is this:
There is nothing about that statement that remotely approaches, “appears as if it shouldn’t be true.” The only way to contort, “no society accepts all viewpoints” into a statement that appears like it shouldn’t be true is by intentionally playing word games (“A tolerant society cannot tolerate the intolerant”).
I think this probably isn’t the first time you’ve thought someone didn’t understand you because they didn’t agree with you.
From my personal experience I can assure you this is false (and for the time being I’ll ignore discussing the broader concept of white men intentionally shirking their privilege, as that’s a larger and more nuanced topic,) but this logo-
came from this photo-
And here’s the story behind it.
Your “path” of beating people with whom you disagree is not the path the rest of us want or need. Get off our side; we don’t need your fascist/Nazi bully tactics to accomplish our goal.
I see you are back to being the self appointed voice of the people. I reject your self appointment and from reading this thread I can see that I’m not alone in rejecting your approach as well.
So you assume you know the subject better than me and I don’t buy into that assumption and that’s the same thing? Is there even anything hard to understand about the paradox of tolerance? Am I in grade three or something?
Popper wrote about it quite plainly in 1945 in what I’d easily call modern English. Anyone here can read it themselves: he does use the word “tolerant” to formulate the paradox, and does talk about a fantastical idea of infinite tolerance rather than a real world idea of what tolerance means. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Somehow being “intolerant” includes destruction of people and “tolerance” includes standing around and letting yourself be destroyed when no one on Earth would use the words that way. (And again, this in not in translation, this is his terminology)
Rawls responded to the paradox by saying that a tolerant society must tolerate intolerance but that a reasonable amount of self-preservation obviously trumps being tolerant. That is, we have more than one value that we balance against each other, so there is no need to turn it into a word game by solely examining tolerance without bringing in the many other considerations we have for what makes a good society. I find Rawls’ real-world acknowledgement that we balance our values against one another a lot more meaningful than Popper’s examination of a fairy tale notion tolerance in a vaccuum.
Responding to the idea that “supposedly tolerant liberals are actually intolerant - they don’t tolerate Nazis” with “the paradox of tolerance” is buying into a foolish word game about what “tolerance” is, rather than just facing the issue head on by saying, “Look, tolerance is a great value, but protecting people from Nazis is another great value, and no reasonable person could think that any sensible society would let the former obliterate the latter.” That cuts to the heart of the matter by reframing the real disagreement to be about whether we are Nazi sympathizers, rather than acccepting the battleground we were given over whether we meet this or that definition of the word “tolerant.”
ETA: I don’t know Popper well, and when I say things like “Popper’s examination of a fairy tale notion of tolerance in a vaccuum” I’m not talking about Popper’s point of raising the paradox of tolerance which may be a great and well thought out point. The “paradox” itself is a silly word game. For all I know, in context, Popper meant it to be one.
Your issue with the paradox is a non-issue. The paradox existed long before Popper. He simply formalized it. Additionally, the paradox is not at all in question here. In fact, this entire discussion is being had by people who agree with the premise that no society can endure which allows those who wish to destroy it to persist. The disagreements here are about just how to respond to those forces within out midsts.
There also is no discussion being had where people are responding to the argument “supposedly tolerant liberals are actually intolerant - they don’t tolerate Nazis” with "the paradox of tolerance”. That’s just you tilting at windmills. Rather the paradox of intolerance is being used as a shorthand for why we must act. Even though the nature of the action is in debate here, the discussion is predicated on the acceptance of the idea that our society cannot progress or indeed even endure if we allow white supremacy to take hold.
As to your assertion that tolerance and paradox are word games and to your argument of definition, it is helpful to try and understand the purpose of formalizing the paradox. The purpose of the paradox of tolerance is not to suggest that a totally tolerant societies can exist or "a fairy tale notion of tolerance in a vaccuum” but rather to illustrate the basic truth that total tolerance isn’t achievable.
“Twitter users hunt down Seattle Nazi and knock him out.”
All kidding aside, that title is as solid as granite and leaves not the tiniest room for misinterpretation. It reminds me of that Raid commercial slogan: “Raid Kills Bugs Dead” (which I understand was penned by a poet).
India’s independence was won on the back of armed insurgencey working in concert with non-violent economics aggression that lasted for several generations before it gained independence. To say it was won nonviolently is silly. This idea the Europe is somewhow this squeaky clean benefactor that handed out independence on a whim is equally as silly.
It’s also kinda notable that the countries that won independence from Europe relatively peacefully (Oz, NZ, etc) are also countries in which the indigenous populations were subject to vigorous and persistent attempts at genocide.
Coincidentally succeeding right after Britain’s capacity to run an Empire was destroyed by the Axis.
The Dalai Lama has acknowledged this dynamic, predicting that Tibet won’t regain its independence until Chinese power collapses for some unrelated reason.
He was advertising a philosophy based on the eradication of several races and other groups of people. There are two highly likely possible results of this: One, that he acts upon that philosophy, and two, that he inspires others to do so.
After giving it some serious thought, I’ve reached the conclusion that if you are a member of one of those groups a Nazi wants to exterminate, then you are allowed to punch Nazis, as it is self-defense.
If you are an able-bodied, straight white man, Nazis hold no imminent threat to you personally and you are not allowed to punch them UNLESS there is a nonwhite or nonstraight person in the vicinity, in which case you ARE allowed to punch the Nazi in the course of defending said innocent bystander; OR you have a nonwhite or nonstraight person in your immediate family, as self-defense is commonly held to extend to defending one’s household, which would include loved ones such as a spouse or children. In that case, it is also okay to punch Nazis.
