EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)

  • qyron
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s intriguing how everyone that views themselves as moderates/liberals forget (or are unacquainted with it) about the paradox of tolerance.

    Tolerance implies everyone has a right to express their ideas and you want that. You want everything out in the open, so you can pick at it, dismantle it and render it pitiful, ridiculous and useless.

    You want the intolerant crying out loud that you are intolerant as that means you are doing the right thing. The intolerant want silence, forced, while the tolerant want noise, anger, tension.

    Remember that anything worthwhile needs to be fought for. Don’t regret being vocal and harsh towards intolerance.

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That is a pretty ironic comment because that is not what the paradox of tolerance is at all. The paradox of tolerance is that intolerance needs to be suppressed for tolerance to exist, since tolerance can’t exist alongside intolerance.

      The paradox is that tolerance needs to be intolerant towards intolerance in order for a tolerant society to exist, literally the exact opposite of what you wrote.

        • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          paradox does not mean ‘has two definitions’. It means the ONE definition contains a contraction, i.e. ‘tolerance needs to be intolerant towards intolerance in order for a tolerant society to exist’ contains a contradiction.

          Really can’t agree that qyron is right, doesn’t seem to know what the paradox of tolerance is

      • qyron
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        10 months ago

        And in order to do that you need intolerants to speak up, so that their rethoric can dismantled.

        Not a hard concept to grasp.

        • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Absolutely incorrect

          Tolerance can perfectly exist without intolerance.

          It’s called peace.

          Intolerance is the antithesis to peace. Intolerance directly causes the opposite of peace.

          • qyron
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Peace is not a static state. Our society is not static, hence opinions and schools of thought change and flow.

            It’s not hard to find countries at peace where intolerance speach has been on the rise, often replacing tolerant and peace leaning and peace loving regimes.

            It was a passive tolerance that allowed for such intolerant currents to rise, currents that are now doing their best to drown the previous.

            I’m remembering the need to repel intolerance by pulling its ideas out in the open, pull it apart and dismantle it, in a context of peace. I am not advocating for violence. What I am advocating for is the need to use the necessary force to snuff out intolerance.