[1] https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
'The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."'
If all it takes people to be freely intolerant is to convince themselves that the object of their intolerance is intolerant too, intolerance spreads everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/nazis-r...
Is it paradoxical? There's "no paradox of peace", the idea that "In order to maintain a peaceful society, the society must be violent against the non-peaceful"
>Early Quakers were among the leaders of the anti-slavery movement in the United States. Quakers are also pacifists, responding to wartime calls for service seeking out non-combat roles such driving ambulances or serving in conscientious objector work camps.[0]
[0] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/quakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Testimony
I think the paradox results from a confusion of static vs. dynamic equilibrium. The consequence of not fighting back when attacked is that you end up dead. But that doesn't mean everyone will fight back - people end up dead all the time, there are plenty of human behaviors that lead to the death of their host and still persist (suicide being the most obvious one). Empathy is pretty deeply rooted in the human psyche, and is adaptive under most peaceful conditions. It's not a stretch to imagine groups for whom it becomes a way of life, at least until they're dead.
The United States did this when it persecuted leftist sympathizing folks back in the 50's. "If we don't kill communism, then communism will kill our society. These filthy socialists and communists preach intolerance with rhetoric against the hardworking American. Tolerating them will only get us killed."
The USSR did this by sending people who questioned party agenda straight to the gulags. "By going against party thinking, these people are pushing for an intolerant society that is stratified with the class structures of old. We need to get rid of them before they ruin our perfect tolerant society."
The same logic is used to try to stamp out Muslims in countries like India right now and other places in the world historically. "If we leave the intolerant Muslims around, they'll bring forth Jihad and enforce Sharia law on everyone. The Koran is very intolerant about how non-Muslims should be treated, we need to force them out because their intolerant views are a threat to tolerance everywhere."
Literally every Christian country post-Martin Luther in the middle ages used that logic to wage wars on other Christian countries. Not just Christian vs. Christian of course. It's why countries in the past fought against each other over religion so much. When intolerance is defined as views that I don't agree with, it becomes kill or be killed world.
One of the best features of the enlightenment thinking is the concept of tolerance. One of the fundamental principles of Western thought. The idea that, we might have fundamentally opposing views, but can we interact without having to resort to a scorched earth policy. It started with Christians tolerating other sects of Christianity, but it’s now encompassed nearly every historical division.
The paradox of tolerance is inherently wrong, because true tolerance requires you to be tolerant to beliefs that you believe are intolerant.
Fascism and Stalinism are two endpoints of Enlightenment thinking. Is it merely utopian to aspire for tolerance when it's clear that it can lead to the depths of brutality and stupidity?