0
1

[–] Duion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That is called a hypocrite, in this case a person who pretends to be tolerant, but actually is intolerant, that is the secret.

0
0

[–] Chimaira92 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm surprised it took that long for this answer.

This is how the left act and I thought it would be interesting to discuss this but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to.

0
1

[–] Duion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I want to.

I should add, that the paradox is that tolerance is seen as something good, while inreality it is bad, tolerance means the degree you can tolerate something that is wrong. Tolerance in engineering for example means, that something can be wrong by x amount without damaging the machine.

0
1

[–] c128 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"Tolerance" has no way to deal with those who disagree with "tolerance."

0
0

[–] Chimaira92 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah so the tolerant must intolerate the intolerant but then they themselves become intolerant.

Intolerance should not hold such a negative connotation to it.

0
1

[–] VulgarChristian 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While correct most conversations will still end up with you as the bigot. Unfortunately, as im sure your painfully aware consistency, philosophy, and how to think logically are relics of the past. Most people will not try, will not care, or will be unable to grasp the concepts here.

0
1

[–] gazillions 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Tolerance means you have no standards. Zero. It is most certainly NOT a virtue.

0
0

[–] Chimaira92 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't claim it is and I don't mean to promote this philosophy. I was interested in discussing it because I believe it has some interesting information behind it. I'll post the rest of what I posted in the other thread that gained no traction at all.

Edit: I believe this man is at least partly responsible for the current psychological disorders that lefties and liberals are suffering from. Also responsible for the corruption in a few important scientific fields such as the study of society and its institutions, and of how and why people behave as they do, both as individuals and in groups within society.

0
1

[–] Chimaira92 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

After arguing with a lefty and bringing up the fact that they were being intolerant of my intolerance I learnt about this paradox.

It's a pretty big rabbit hole of information I believe.

0
1

[–] Chimaira92 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Homophily and intolerance

The relation between homophily (a preference for interacting with those with similar traits) and intolerance is manifested when a tolerant person is faced with the dilemma of choosing between establishing a positive relationship with a tolerant individual of a dissimilar group, or establishing a positive relationship with an intolerant group member. In the first case, the intolerant in-group member disapproves the established link with an other-group individual, leading necessarily to a negative relationship with his tolerant equal; while in the second case, the negative relationship toward the other-group individual is endorsed by the intolerant in-group member and promotes a positive relationship between them.

This dilemma has been considered by Aguiar and Parravano in Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks, modeling a community of individuals whose relationships are governed by a modified form of the Heider balance theory.

0
0

[–] Chimaira92 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Karl_Popper

Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in 1902, to upper middle-class parents. All of Karl Popper's grandparents were Jewish but were not devout, and as part of the cultural assimilation process, the Popper family converted to Lutheranism before Karl was born,[16][17] and so he received Lutheran baptism.

 

Popper left school at the age of 16 and attended lectures in mathematics, physics, philosophy, psychology and the history of music as a guest student at the University of Vienna. In 1919, Popper became attracted by Marxism and subsequently joined the Association of Socialist School Students.[11] He also became a member of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria, which was at that time a party that fully adopted the Marxist ideology.[11] After the street battle in the Hörlgasse on 15 June 1919, when police shot eight of his unarmed party comrades, he became disillusioned by what he saw as the "pseudo-scientific" historical materialism of Marx, abandoned the ideology, and remained a supporter of social liberalism throughout his life.

In 1928, he earned a doctorate in psychology, under the supervision of Karl Bühler. His dissertation was entitled "Die Methodenfrage der Denkpsychologie" (The question of method in cognitive psychology).[23] In 1929, he obtained the authorisation to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school, which he started doing. He married his colleague Josefine Anna Henninger (1906–1985) in 1930. Fearing the rise of Nazism and the threat of the Anschluss, he started to use the evenings and the nights to write his first book Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie (The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge). He needed to publish one to get some academic position in a country that was safe for people of Jewish descent. However, he ended up not publishing the two-volume work, but a condensed version of it with some new material, Logik der Forschung (The Logic of Scientific Discovery), in 1934. Here, he criticised psychologism, naturalism, inductionism, and logical positivism, and put forth his theory of potential falsifiability as the criterion demarcating science from non-science. In 1935 and 1936, he took unpaid leave to go to the United Kingdom for a study visit.

Political philosophy

In his early years Popper was impressed by Marxism, whether of Communists or socialists. An event that happened in 1919 had a profound effect on him: During a riot, caused by the Communists, the police shot several unarmed people, including some of Popper's friends, when they tried to free party comrades from prison. The riot had, in fact, been part of a plan by which leaders of the Communist party with connections to Béla Kun tried to take power by a coup; Popper did not know about this at that time. However, he knew that the riot instigators were swayed by the Marxist doctrine that class struggle would produce vastly more dead men than the inevitable revolution brought about as quickly as possible, and so had no scruples to put the life of the rioters at risk to achieve their selfish goal of becoming the future leaders of the working class. This was the start of his later criticism of historicism.[39][40] Popper began to reject Marxist historicism, which he associated with questionable means, and later socialism, which he associated with placing equality before freedom (to the possible disadvantage of equality).