this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
951 points (96.5% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
2231 readers
608 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, the resolution to the "paradox" of tolerance is that (a) "the intolerant" is anyone that would deny human rights to any other human (b) the intolerant must be denied political power since they will use it to create an intolerant society.
Tolerance doesn't justify political violence.
However, defense of self or others CAN justify violence against the intolerant. The threat of increased stochastic violence due to inflammatory rhetoric is not as clear as a person stating their intent to kill and then brandishing a firearm, but both can be mortal threats. At the very least acts of political violence CAN be justified by the actor to a jury of their peers. Denying a political violence can ever be justified (I'm looking at you Bernie) ignores history and supports every authoritarian regime.
I'm not saying that the Kirk murder was justified, but ... I'd be willing to hear a defendant out as a jurist or jury member.
There is no resolution to the paradox of intolerance.
What you're providing is an excuse to be intolerant. You say "I'm allowed to be intolerant to this guy because this guy is intolerant", but whatever excuse you use, you're now intolerant, and you deserve whatever punishment you think intolerant people deserve.
There's no special category for "people who are intolerant, but only intolerant to those they view as intolerant". There's the tolerant, and the intolerant. If you are intolerant, no matter how good your reasons, you're still intolerant. Thus, the paradox.
Whatever happened to the right of self defense? For example, Charlie Kirk was literally trying to kill me. He was actively attempting to do so. That isn't hypothetical or allegorical. Charlie Kirk literally wanted me dead, and he was taking active material material steps to advance that goal.
If someone busts into my house and tries to kill me with a gun, I'm allowed to shoot them to defend myself. But suddenly when someone like Kirk wants to kill me and thousands like me, it's sacred protected speech just because he's chosen to use the state as a murder weapon.
"Literally"? Did he shoot at you? Or did he try to stab you?
"That isn't hypothetical or allegorical"? No? Did he try to run you over with his car?
"Charlie Kirk literally wanted me dead" I'm sure he had absolutely no idea who you were. He may have wanted a whole category of people that includes you dead, but he wasn't actually trying to kill you himself, and didn't know you personally.
"it's sacred protected speech just because he's chosen to use " Yes, when someone uses speech it's different from when they aim a gun at you and pull the trigger. Is that surprising to you?
"I didn't plot to kill you, I just plotted to kill your entire family. You have no business complaining."
So, you think he literally knows your name and plotted to kill your specific family? Are you really that deluded?
I am not sure what you wouldn't get about immediacy of threat in relation to self defense. There are very clear reasons that self defense involving lethal force is restricted to the immediate act, and that some of those restrictions are loosened only within your home.
Killing someone because you believe they will kill you or cause your death at some point in the future is not an acceptable way for a society to function.
You're right. It's a different crime. It's not self-defense in the immediate criminal sense. But Charlie was absolutely guilty of incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity. We've literally hanged people at tribunals like Nuremberg for doing the exact same thing that Charlie spent his whole career doing. In just world, Charlie would be indicted on crimes against humanity, convicted, and hanged for his crimes.
The resolution comes when you understand that tolerance is a contract. If you don't sign that contract you are not protected by it. Is that simple.
There's no contract, there's a social norm to be tolerant. And if you're intolerant you've violated that social norm. That includes if you're intolerant of the intolerant.
That norm only applies to the ones that follow that norm.
Right, so if you're intolerant of anybody, including intolerant people, you're not following that norm.
Wrong.
You tolerate the tolerants, I tolerate you. You don't tolerate tolerants, I don't tolerate you.
And by default, everyone is tolerant until proven intolerant.
Which means you're not tolerant, and people should not tolerate you.
Tolerance is not an absolute.
I tolerate them.
So, you tolerate people who are intolerant?
I tolerate that one.
No, I am tolerant of the intolerant. I believe they should receive all the same rights as I do: food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, UBI, etc. Political power is NOT a human right, it is a privilege and a responsibility. If you are intolerant, you don't get to use political power for any purpose. This resolves the paradox, preventing the intolerant from creating a intolerant society from a tolerant one.
Justification of (political) violence is really separate from the paradox of tolerance. Ideally, no violence would be required because none would be intent on and capable of denying someone else their bodily autonomy. Failing that, violence in defense (of self or others) is justified.
So you vehemently disagree with the meme because there's no escaping the paradox of intolerance?
I disagree with the "meme" but not for that "reason". Also, that "reason" is an untrue statement.
There is no paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Be respectful and be respected. Be kind and receive kindness. Be tolerant if you want to be tolerated.
Opt out of that contract and you will no longer be covered by it. You will reap what you sew.
If you attack someone, they get to defend themselves. You don't get to whine about them being violent against you. You earned that shit. And the rest of us get to laugh at you and applaud.
I know. I know. It's just so HARD to understand. For you.
Tolerance is not a contract. You're never required to sign anything and agree to the terms.
But, if it were a contract and not just a social norm, anybody who is intolerant breaks those terms, correct? That includes people who are intolerant of the intolerant?
Incorrect. Fuck off.
You know someone has a great and logical argument when they say "Incorrect. Fuck off." It's definitely not a sign that they have no argument at all and are attempting to avoid admitting that.
This isn't an argument. You deny the most basic foundation of human interaction in a functioning society, so you deserve no part in one. Fuck off.
I'm not addressing the "most basic foundation of human interaction" or anything. I'm addressing this pretend solution to the paradox of tolerance. You know, logic? Ever heard of it?
That is the most basic prerequisite to discuss this matter. You immediately failed it, and I have already dismissed you twice.
The fact that you're unable to understand logic means that I've failed? Ok.