I thought I made it quite clear but I will simplify it further for you: the tolerance paradox is misused to justify violence against people with whom the aggressor disagrees. It should not be used that way as it was never intended to be used that way. The top level comment is a classic example of not understanding what Popper wrote.
I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Which part confuses you?
I’ll ask again – to whom are you arguing against?
To repeat myself, I’m arguing that the top comment (and clearly you) doesn’t understand the paradox of tolerance. If you’re not going to read my comments before you reply, what are you hoping to achieve? You just come across as lacking even basic reading comprehension.
If a group disrespects another group, they disrespect it and some shame may befall them.
If they begin to rally for the diminishment of another group - that has caused no harm (other than imagined) - then that group has left the social contract and its protections.
You’re conflating conveniently and setting up a garbled false choice where you’re arguing in defense of tolerating intolerance because to do otherwise is bad and “both sides.”
Once one side proclaims that the other side deserves a punch in the face, the receivers may try to invoke your drivel, but they began by deciding a population should be removed or diminished.
I thought I made it quite clear but I will simplify it further for you: the tolerance paradox is misused to justify violence against people with whom the aggressor disagrees. It should not be used that way as it was never intended to be used that way. The top level comment is a classic example of not understanding what Popper wrote.
deleted by creator
I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Which part confuses you?
To repeat myself, I’m arguing that the top comment (and clearly you) doesn’t understand the paradox of tolerance. If you’re not going to read my comments before you reply, what are you hoping to achieve? You just come across as lacking even basic reading comprehension.
I feel like you don’t get the paradox part. Being a nazi is opting out if the social web of protections of which tolerance is a part.
Punch a local nazi today, you’ll see that it’s a wholesome experience.
If a group disrespects another group, they disrespect it and some shame may befall them.
If they begin to rally for the diminishment of another group - that has caused no harm (other than imagined) - then that group has left the social contract and its protections.
You’re conflating conveniently and setting up a garbled false choice where you’re arguing in defense of tolerating intolerance because to do otherwise is bad and “both sides.”
Once one side proclaims that the other side deserves a punch in the face, the receivers may try to invoke your drivel, but they began by deciding a population should be removed or diminished.
It’s not the same.