And that “paradox” boils down to the intolerant saw of “you’re not tolerant if you’re not tolerant of intolerance”
It’s a paradox b/c it’s not really a paradox, but it seems like one, when couched disingenuously.
But it’s like freedom. Can you really believe in freedom if you believe in law and punishment?* But can you truly be free with criminals running amok? So to have freedom, you must restrict freedom of those who would take away your freedom.
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement which is actually not a contradiction if you look closely. That’s why it’s named like this. Being intolerant towards fascists and other intolerant groups is actually a way to promote tolerance, it’s a tolerant act.
And that “paradox” boils down to the intolerant saw of “you’re not tolerant if you’re not tolerant of intolerance”
It’s a paradox b/c it’s not really a paradox, but it seems like one, when couched disingenuously.
But it’s like freedom. Can you really believe in freedom if you believe in law and punishment?* But can you truly be free with criminals running amok? So to have freedom, you must restrict freedom of those who would take away your freedom.
* I’m well aware lots of ppl say “no” here
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement which is actually not a contradiction if you look closely. That’s why it’s named like this. Being intolerant towards fascists and other intolerant groups is actually a way to promote tolerance, it’s a tolerant act.
It’s not a tolerant act, but the result is that the base level of tolerance is higher, so it’s an acceptable compromise.