ThailandExpress
1326
39
5
Mar 22, 2026 8:54 PM
ThailandExpress
1326
39
5
UncleRat
Didn't he play harmonica with "Blues Travelers"?
duktayp
SlavaUkrainisaysSteveBuscemi
Hexrowe
The "paradox" here is just an absurdist wordplay, anyway, not an actual logical self-contradiction.
Hexrowe
PS. It also disappears if you view tolerance as just one necessary means to the end of human florishing and not as the end in and of itself.
SquirrelWithATophat
There is no "paradox of tolerance". Tolerance is a social contract. Those who abide by the contract by being tolerant are protected by it, whereas those who reject the contract by being intolerant are not protected by it and must face penalties for being intolerant.
IamIntoleranceIntolerant
You are correct.
Free speech gives one the right to preach intolerance. It does not force others to listen to, or accept it.
TheBunnyPants
Wrong! Free speech is part of the intolerance accords. I won't hear some hateful noise, I have no obligation to be subject to it. If you're wondering where "THE LINE" tm is, it's when the speech stops being abstract and moves to practical. Then it should be stopped.
IamIntoleranceIntolerant
Up to the point where speech becomes incitement, it is still free speech. Someone can say that God hates gay people, but they can't follow that up with gay people should be killed.
Now, some speech, such as "white power," carries implicit incitement with it because that is historically how it has been used. But, someone saying "white people are superior" is not the same thing.
Speech is free until it implies or encourages violence.
FrankGrenadine
Who decides who is intolerant?
SquirrelWithATophat
Tolerance isn't exactly an ambiguous or hard to define concept. If someone is hating a person who has not wronged them or anyone else, and hates them merely for being different in some harmless way, then the person doing the hating is intolerant.
FrankGrenadine
Seems hard to define to me. Or at least i don’t agree with what the current administration of the US considers “intolerant”. I’m guessing you don’t either?
While Trump is particularly bad, I don’t think it’s ever really possible to trust a government to make that decision. While different in theory, I don’t think there is much practical difference between the power to enforce tolerance and power to oppress unpopular minorities.
drbwaa
It's stupid to trust politicians to use words correctly, but that doesn't make it hard to define.
SquirrelWithATophat
It's not hard at all to define. If a person has done no wrong to anyone and isn't infringing upon anyone's right to exist, then it is wrong to be intolerant of their existence. Full stop
Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is just a bigot trying to justify their hateful views/actions.