top | item 24755183

(no title)

It might be worth considering The Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

discuss

1123581321|5 years ago

The grandparent comment to yours already linked to that.

another_sock|5 years ago

What do you think has been happening for a while now?

rndgermandude|5 years ago

People point to the Paradox of Tolerance like is a gospel straight from your preferred deity, something absolute and self-evident and universally true and universally applicable.

I personally think the thesis of the Paradox of Tolerance has merit, but far too often I see it used as a blunt object to bludgeon dissenting opinions, with people telling themselves they are doing good and are protecting society.

(And no, I dn NOT deny the Holocaust, and yes, I do think Holocaust denial is a big problem which got only bigger recently and needs addressing)

geodel|5 years ago

Agreed. I have seen most of the time when people bring this they are usually of type 'As long as intolerants are of my favorite type they are fine' Anything else is like "ah let me pull my nuclear weapon "Paradox of Tolerance".

ibeckermayer|5 years ago

How exactly is the paradox of tolerance relevant here? What precisely is “intolerant” about denying a specific historical fact?

majewsky|5 years ago

It's the other side that's being "intolerant" for not tolerating the holocaust deniers.

hhjinks|5 years ago

> It might be worth considering The Paradox of Tolerance

Or the slippery slope fallacy, as it is known in less ideological circles. The "paradox" simply asserts that a tolerant society will be usurped by intolerant actors. It is in all respects a slippery slope argument.

NateEag|5 years ago

Remember that "fallacy" means "argument form not guaranteed to produce true results given true inputs."

Outside the context of rigorous mathematical proofs, many fallacies are legitimate, helpful tools.

See for instance "post hoc ergo propter hoc": https://xkcd.com/552/