When I think of the _Paradox of Tolerance_ I always think of Gödel's _incompleteness theorems_.
Say you are restaurant owner that is tolerant of any consumer, it brings in money. Left, right, center, no matter the political spectrum; gay, straight, bisexual, no matter the sexuality. You provide them a good meal and they gladly pay. Now comes in a client and he starts trashing the place, tipping over tables, spitting in people's food. Do you stay tolerant and let it happen or brake your tolerance and deal with the situation and get him out? Your clients will no longer be tolerant of you and your business if you keep letting having is way.
Reality, you have defined "tolerance of others" with axioms that they do not maliciously destroy the property in our restaurant and they don't spit in the food of your clients. _Paradox of Tolerance_ highly resembles an inconsistent formal system pertaining to the proof of tolerance. "Tolerance of others" is a constant formal system in order to be tolerant.
Both you and your clients have agree upon definition of tolerance. It is the man destroying your property, you, and your clients that have differences in the definition of behavioral tolerance. The three do not share the same axioms. A universal definition of tolerance cannot be obtained.
Tolerance is also contextual, based on set and setting; who else is around, making it a malleable definition. This means _tolerance_ is a set / highly parameterized function. Location of public or private is just one parameter of many. For instant the scenario above about the business would most likely be accept if the setting was on set for a scene in a move.
The issue I think arrives when there is an unwillingness to tolerate people who hold intolerant ideas, views, or beliefs, even when those people do not act on those ideas, views, or beliefs - i.e. when the people with intolerant views are not actually practicing intolerance.
It's one thing to shun a customer for practicing intolerance, it's another to shun a customer for holding intolerant beliefs without actually practicing intolerance or materially affecting the quality of life of anyone around them, is it not?
Someone who takes no actions based on their beliefs effectively doesn’t hold those beliefs, as far as anyone else knows, and doesn’t get shunned for them. So you’re trying to define some level of advertising your beliefs as “not acting on them”. What’s that level? An op-ed on the problem of gay people, or just a casual remark that of course gay marriage is a sin?
I'm thinking more along the lines of the OpenSUSE project banning contributors who wouldn't concede to a demand to wave a trans pride flag, referring to all conservatives as "Rotten Flesh", NixOS purging "Nazis" (read: people who didn't openly and vocally support all aspects of LGBTQ+ culture), etc. And I say this as someone who is themselves not heterosexual, and who has a non-cisgender partner.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like having to fear for my safety around genuinely bigoted and threatening people, I just don't like the "wave our flag or you're a literal nazi / rotten flesh / subhuman who should be excommunicated from the entire linux community" type of messaging coming from the opposite camp either. Those extremes both make me feel profoundly uncomfortable and unsafe.
I read about the opensuse story and... It seems like the project acted quite reasonably? It seems that certain bigoted snowflakes were triggered over the pride themed open suse lizard thing on reddit.
> And I say this as someone who is themselves not heterosexual, and who has a non-cisgender partner.
It shouldn't get that far. Once you invite one fascist, and the first one is typically polite, there will be more coming so you've got to "nip it in the bud".
They usually protest, if that's what you're asking.
As a movement they're dependent on other organisations to carry them forward, hence why they infiltrate political parties, bully media outlets into disseminating their talking points and so on.
Using lawfare to try to take out a political opponent (ridiculous NY charge with no precedent, no victim, and from a DA who was famous for reducing felonies to misdemeanours but for Trump did the opposite)
Applying govt pressure to social media companies to censor content (twitter files etc)
Using the intelligence apparatus to try to take out a political opponent (russian collusion hoax, fake dossier)
Relying on the media lies to maintain power (border is secure, Biden is mentally competent etc)
Well these are all features of Stalin, Putin, the CCP and now the modern Democrat party.
All of your examples tell me you need to find a wider circle of news to read.
At the very least you're repeating propoganda. Every one I could easily refute, but what would be the point? I'm not going to convince you. You're happy in your bubble.
But don't think for a moment that you are certainly right.
Your comment is just meaningless words disconnected from reality.
And a very large number of people agree with me on some level.
We saw the evidence of that at the last election.
So my "bubble" is pretty large actually.
What about yours?
Say you are restaurant owner that is tolerant of any consumer, it brings in money. Left, right, center, no matter the political spectrum; gay, straight, bisexual, no matter the sexuality. You provide them a good meal and they gladly pay. Now comes in a client and he starts trashing the place, tipping over tables, spitting in people's food. Do you stay tolerant and let it happen or brake your tolerance and deal with the situation and get him out? Your clients will no longer be tolerant of you and your business if you keep letting having is way.
Reality, you have defined "tolerance of others" with axioms that they do not maliciously destroy the property in our restaurant and they don't spit in the food of your clients. _Paradox of Tolerance_ highly resembles an inconsistent formal system pertaining to the proof of tolerance. "Tolerance of others" is a constant formal system in order to be tolerant.
Both you and your clients have agree upon definition of tolerance. It is the man destroying your property, you, and your clients that have differences in the definition of behavioral tolerance. The three do not share the same axioms. A universal definition of tolerance cannot be obtained.
Tolerance is also contextual, based on set and setting; who else is around, making it a malleable definition. This means _tolerance_ is a set / highly parameterized function. Location of public or private is just one parameter of many. For instant the scenario above about the business would most likely be accept if the setting was on set for a scene in a move.