You both completely miss the argument. Cile is strawmanning, vas is again viewing from the omniscient or opposing viewpoint.
Virtually all intolerants perceive themselves as victims. Permitting “intolerance of intolerance” is just accelerationist, “might makes right” ideology.
Ultimately, my argument is that the “paradox of tolerance” is intellectually dishonest answer to cognitive dissonance. It’s refusing to accept responsibility for selecting in-groups and out-groups.
It’s not prescriptive. These divisions are a natural conclusion of moral systems. Acting on these divisions is a natural conclusion of other moral systems.
Wrong question. It doesn’t matter who was “first”.
If the first group stops, the problem is gone.
If the second group stops, the problem is not gone but likely growing.
You both completely miss the argument. Cile is strawmanning, vas is again viewing from the omniscient or opposing viewpoint.
Virtually all intolerants perceive themselves as victims. Permitting “intolerance of intolerance” is just accelerationist, “might makes right” ideology.
This just feels like an enlightened centrist take or worse, playing cover for bigotry.
Cile is less strawmanning and more exemplifying the absurdity of applying this mentality to literal Nazis and white supremacists.
Can you give an example of your assertion, historical or imagined, where we SHOULDN’T act against acts of intolerance due to some muddying factor?
Ultimately, my argument is that the “paradox of tolerance” is intellectually dishonest answer to cognitive dissonance. It’s refusing to accept responsibility for selecting in-groups and out-groups.
It’s not prescriptive. These divisions are a natural conclusion of moral systems. Acting on these divisions is a natural conclusion of other moral systems.