Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit. If you are tolerant with exceptions, you are intolerant, period.
People who refer to it hypocritically pretend to have a higher moral ground than their opponents. In fact, they are more or less the same. Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. But it's not hypocrisy.
So would you agree with a statement that "we should just be tolerant of the KKK and win them to our side with virtue", then?
Note that this isn't hyperbole for rhetorical effect, that is literally the kind of intolerance that the paradox of tolerance is based on, and seems to be what you're advocating, by extension.
Yes, I fully agree with that statement. You can't just beat the racists from KKK into submission. You can only show them that their convictions are wrong.
Just a nitpick, but fascism inherently has a component about a faux nostalgia for a vague better times, ultranationalism, and so on, and simply by suppressing speech one does not became a fastics, you probably mean totalitarian.
There's at least one person I've heard of of doing this type of interaction to change the minds of KKK members— Daryl Davis. He's certainly an uncommon example though. Most people who are in stark disagreement with another's views don't seek them out as potential friends.
“Ignorance breeds fear. We fear those things we don’t understand. If we don’t put a lid on that fear and keep that fear in check, that fear in turn will breed hatred because we hate those things that frighten us.
“If we don’t keep that hatred in check, that hatred in turn will breed destruction. We want to destroy those things that we hate. Why? Because they frighten us. But guess what? They may have been harmless and we were just ignorant.”
That's easy. Tolerance, is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them [1]. People who carve themselves an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, are literally contradicting this definition. Yet, at the same time they pretend to be tolerant. There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy.
So, how do tolerant people fight the intolerant? Maybe, we have some similar precedents from the past. Turning the other cheek principle [2] and nonresistance movement [3] have worked out quite well for Gandhi. Educate, explain, suffer injustice, yet, stay true to your principles. That's the way to the better future for humanity.
(I'm not claiming to be a fully tolerant person myself. I'm just calling out hypocrites who pretend to be ones)
Gandhi himself says you can’t fast against a tyrant.
He also says that you can’t wake a person pretending to sleep.
I enjoy learning about the tactics used by non violent approaches - and it has shown a realistic and clever tactical approach to your political reality.
Gandhi’s approach was always about both - morals and practical tactics.
Take Mandela- he adapted Gandhi’s approach because he realized that the approach was contingent on his operating environment.
So acknowledging Gandhi means acknowledging Popper.
You can’t convince someone who is only deigning to speak to you, or worse - sees you as a chance to broadcast their poison while appearing legitimate.
Bad faith arguments are not solvable in the modern public squares.
That's great it worked for Gandhi, but I'd argue the tolerant HAVE been doing that - stretching back to MLK's marches, and yet here we are (in the US) where a violent mob stormed the capitol.
Tolerating them may be better for humanity but it takes to long for those folks to disappear from the gene pool. And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with. Sure, guns exist around the world but they are in massive abundance in the US.
Confronting a violent mob has nothing to do with tolerance. Those applying force can be stopped, with force. Suppressing their right to speak, to communicate, to bank, to work, is quite a different matter, more suitable to real fascists many are so scared about.
And I don't even want to touch the subject or very recent far more destructive mobs which not only were not silenced, but instead were celebrated and praised for their principled position
> And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with.
I don't think you know who Gandhi was.
If you think that tolerance doesn't work then just don't call yourself tolerant, it's quite simple. Also your remarks about the gene pool might be interpreted as a call for genocide, so I'd be careful with that.
> There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy.
Half of this thread in a nutshell is loyalists who have a mediocre grasp on history.
Our government was established on founding principles that have been eroded and usurped beyond recognition. The loyalists cannot imagine that one day our elites in government - who care nothing about the people - will do something that even they think crosses a grotesque line. By that time, it will be too late. The power they've given the government in order to remove the bad orange man will not be given up without a fight.
> Half of this thread in a nutshell is loyalists who have a mediocre grasp on history.
Yes, I particularly love when people are trying to appeal to history and justify hate speech laws and Antifa to say that without them, a second Hitler could raise to power. I consider myself to be lacking in education, but damn.
Not quite, it still works to an extent. In this case it's quite clear those utilising Parler are doing so to spread their intolerant message.
I'd say applying the Paradox of Tolerance is not hypocritical but more asymptotic, i.e. we will tend toward zero but never reach it.
People who refer to it hypocritically pretend to have a higher moral ground than their opponents. In fact, they are more or less the same. Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. But it's not hypocrisy.