It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance,
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other’s ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.
Plus the concept we’re discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that’s a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.
But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.
The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who’s being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don’t think so.
And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant.
Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.
100% of people will not agree on what’s intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the “you’re intolerant” excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.
America’s worked fine so far on tolerance. It’s one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they’re wrong, but don’t try to silence them, and their ideas won’t gain traction, and they will not gain followers.
The center will not hold, if we’re trying to silence each other.
No, it can stay in a steady state, or if the majority of the population agrees one way it can move back towards tolerance.
You’re making a false statement and a straw man.
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance, and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
I don’t think I’m using a straw man. The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical abstraction and I’m describing it within that context.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other’s ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.
Plus the concept we’re discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that’s a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.
But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.
The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who’s being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don’t think so.
Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.
100% of people will not agree on what’s intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the “you’re intolerant” excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.
America’s worked fine so far on tolerance. It’s one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they’re wrong, but don’t try to silence them, and their ideas won’t gain traction, and they will not gain followers.
The center will not hold, if we’re trying to silence each other.