worldnews

Okay so even if that is how the idea was originally formulated, it's obvious that !SupraMario@lemmy.world is correct in his re-application of it.

Proceeds to make an argument that has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance.

(if you need an actual example of how this would happen, please consult Rotherham, in England, where racist Pakistanis formed human trafficking groups and infiltrated social services as well as having the local police force completely subservient to them by using Epstein-style blackmail and inviting the police officers to rape kidnapped children, then utilised their positions in social care to acquire more victims to rape and pimp out)

That's... not "how this would happen" and has no relation at all to the point you seem to be trying to make? Everything these people did they did under the noses of (and/or with the cooperation of) local police; they didn't do anything close to "take power" in Rotherham, and the police had no issue cracking down on the perpetrators once they actually got to it. If this is what super regressive Muslim groups taking power in sections of European society looks like, then it's clearly a non-issue as far as the paradox is concerned. There's a reason the paradox limits itself to threats to tolerant society, not just anything vaguely intolerant.

I believe that if there is visible presence of highly regressive islamic practices, you might see a rise in reactionary behaviour among christian, jewish or even atheist groups - these groups might organise to oppress women in the same way having seen that Muslims can "get away with it," they might make moves to increase the visibility of their own faith, seeing that Muslims go the extra mile to make their practices highly visible and infiltrating into daily public life.

And I believe unicorns will fall from the sky tomorrow; we can talk about this when you have evidence.

Literally just asking Muslims to integrate better in your secular society does wonders to prevent other groups from spinning out of control in reaction.

I don't deal in hypotheticals; the only form of "spinning out of control" that has actually happened is hate crimes against European Muslims, and making society less tolerant to Muslims does nothing to stop those. Also, I think you should integrate in secular society first, because secularism as implemented in most of Europe guarantees the non-interference of religion in the state and the non-interference of the state in religion. If you reject freedom of religion, which you are, you have no business talking about secular society (unless you live in France, but Denmark doesn't follow the French model). Maybe you have something to learn from burka-wearing Muslims in that regard.

But none of you ever think to do that - your first instinct is to nanny-state them, as if Islam were some condition to be politely danced around, no other ways about it.

Uh... not banning articles of clothing or the like is the default; it's banning them that needs a solid case, since it's an egregious violation of freedom of expression. This isn't nanny-stating; it's how democracy is supposed to work. It seems to me you have quite a lot of integrating into democratic society to do before you can point fingers at people.

If they're normal people, treat them like normal people

You mean treat them like your idea of normal people. Again, a core part of liberal democracy is protecting people from what you or anyone else considers "normal;" otherwise you'll find quite a few people in your corner of the world who think same sex or interracial relationships are very abnormal.

Don't get me started on "women might choose it for themselves," because there's obviously a lot of religious corrosion in their childhood to unpack before we deal with that.

So women don't get to have autonomy unless you approve of the results. So enlightened, so secular.