I used to worry a out this, Paradox of Intolerance but then saw a discussion on the-site-that-shall-not-be-named that boiled down to “the bigots break the social contract, they stopped playing by the rules first, so you can be Intolerant of their intolerance. After all, they want to deny another’s existance. FUCK 'EM!”
Yep. Tolerance is a social contract we all agree to participate in. They broke the contract, which means they are no longer bound to or protected by it. Therefore it is not wrong or paradoxical to not tolerate intolerance.
Just because he called it an apparent paradox doesn’t mean that Popper disagrees with you. He merely said that open societies should first fight intolerance with reason and civil discourse; but if that fails, the tolerant majority should hold the right to suppress intolerant opinions.
I used to worry a out this, Paradox of Intolerance but then saw a discussion on the-site-that-shall-not-be-named that boiled down to “the bigots break the social contract, they stopped playing by the rules first, so you can be Intolerant of their intolerance. After all, they want to deny another’s existance. FUCK 'EM!”
Yep. Tolerance is a social contract we all agree to participate in. They broke the contract, which means they are no longer bound to or protected by it. Therefore it is not wrong or paradoxical to not tolerate intolerance.
Suck it Karl Popper! /s
Just because he called it an apparent paradox doesn’t mean that Popper disagrees with you. He merely said that open societies should first fight intolerance with reason and civil discourse; but if that fails, the tolerant majority should hold the right to suppress intolerant opinions.
Their words are threats of violence. Period.