I tried it recently. It worked. Problem, contrarian in the back row? :troll:

  • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m so confused because I knew all of this but still don’t understand how that can be used to further anyone’s ideology but ours.

    The whole reason you bring up the paradox of tolerance is to tell liberals “No, we can’t allow the fascists to speak, we need to beat the shit out of them because if you don’t they’ll break everything”

    How do you read this and come away with the conclusion “we must have absolute tolerance”?

    • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      The worry is that if you're committed to all those premises, you have to come up with a way to reject the conclusion. That's what this clever move about distinguishing moral problems and social is supposed to be doing.

      The more common liberal move is to reject (3), and say that the best ideas will meeting necessarily win out in the end. This is indicative of an extreme :brainworms: infestation, so at least the argument given in the picture is a little better than that.

      Just being worried about this is a symptom of liberalism, though. You don't need a fancy argument; you can just say that fascist ideas shouldn't be tolerated. The end.