> If you want a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance.
But what's the limit of this process? The end state will continue to be intolerant of intolerance, because people will continue to think bad things.
All that means is that your "tolerance" has a clearly defined limit.
This comes up all the time. I pointed out the case with war. There's also crime. We respect the rights of others, so we don't steal, except when we fine criminals, we don't imprison, except for the prisons we have, we don't kill, except in self-defense and to execute.
No one ever describes those as "paradoxes" because they're not.
As to why people would describe this particular case as a paradox, I'm going to avoid getting into ideology.
But what's the limit of this process? The end state will continue to be intolerant of intolerance, because people will continue to think bad things.
All that means is that your "tolerance" has a clearly defined limit.
This comes up all the time. I pointed out the case with war. There's also crime. We respect the rights of others, so we don't steal, except when we fine criminals, we don't imprison, except for the prisons we have, we don't kill, except in self-defense and to execute.
No one ever describes those as "paradoxes" because they're not.
As to why people would describe this particular case as a paradox, I'm going to avoid getting into ideology.