The paradox of tolerance is about absolute/unlimited tolerance. One can set limits on tolerance and respect the human rights of the intolerant, it’s not mutually exclusive.
Btw, the combination of “X people don’t deserve human rights” and “those who don’t support taking rights away from X are equal to X” is especially atrocious.
If people break the law, we restrict their freedom. Many seem to oppose that idea nowadays, or at least claim to. There’s a certain irony in that. But yes, if an individual breaks the social contract in a manner deemed “against the law”, then certain rights are removed from them.
There’s no paradox if you look at it as a social contract. If you don’t uphold your part of the contract (tolerating others) then you aren’t entitled to benefits from the contract (being tolerated by others).
The tolerance paradox is bullshit. Source: Daryl Davis, the black dude who converted a ton (like over 80) KKK members by just being a tolerant human to them.
You have to tolerate the person, not the message. You can say “you’re a valid human being” and “the stuff that comes out of your mouth is actually terrible” at the same time. Doing anything else pushes all of those valid humans with bad ideas together and makes a big echo chamber.
So, you advocate against human rights? Denying rights and dehumanizing according to people’s ideas is pretty nazi.
deleted by creator
The paradox of tolerance is about absolute/unlimited tolerance. One can set limits on tolerance and respect the human rights of the intolerant, it’s not mutually exclusive.
Btw, the combination of “X people don’t deserve human rights” and “those who don’t support taking rights away from X are equal to X” is especially atrocious.
I don’t believe that extends to denying them their basic human rights, though.
That depends on how much of the social contract a group is willing to break.
We benefit from knowing just how far nazis are willing to go to further their beliefs. And their efforts should be resisted in kind.
If people break the law, we restrict their freedom. Many seem to oppose that idea nowadays, or at least claim to. There’s a certain irony in that. But yes, if an individual breaks the social contract in a manner deemed “against the law”, then certain rights are removed from them.
There’s no paradox if you look at it as a social contract. If you don’t uphold your part of the contract (tolerating others) then you aren’t entitled to benefits from the contract (being tolerated by others).
The tolerance paradox is bullshit. Source: Daryl Davis, the black dude who converted a ton (like over 80) KKK members by just being a tolerant human to them.
You have to tolerate the person, not the message. You can say “you’re a valid human being” and “the stuff that comes out of your mouth is actually terrible” at the same time. Doing anything else pushes all of those valid humans with bad ideas together and makes a big echo chamber.