Don't forget the paradox of the paradox of intolerance (a.k.a. the meta-paradox of intolerance) which states that Popper's paradox of intolerance is often cited by those seeking to justify their own intolerance, ironically identifying themselves as also among those whom the paradox of intolerance warns against.
(I jest but, in seriousness, always remember that Popper's paradox works as a justification for any side and any viewpoint, whether good or bad. That's why it's a weak argument.)
It's because tolerance is not what's actually being discussed. It's morality. No-one thinks we should tolerate rape or murder, or considers the locking in a box of those who commit those acts as being in any way intolerant, even though to a dictionary definition, it is.
It's just about changing morals, with the idea of tolerance as the vehicle that smoothed the way. All the dichotomies dissolve when things are seen for what they are.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Don't forget the paradox of the paradox of intolerance (a.k.a. the meta-paradox of intolerance) which states that Popper's paradox of intolerance is often cited by those seeking to justify their own intolerance, ironically identifying themselves as also among those whom the paradox of intolerance warns against.
(I jest but, in seriousness, always remember that Popper's paradox works as a justification for any side and any viewpoint, whether good or bad. That's why it's a weak argument.)
It's because tolerance is not what's actually being discussed. It's morality. No-one thinks we should tolerate rape or murder, or considers the locking in a box of those who commit those acts as being in any way intolerant, even though to a dictionary definition, it is.
It's just about changing morals, with the idea of tolerance as the vehicle that smoothed the way. All the dichotomies dissolve when things are seen for what they are.