There's a straightforward way to resolve the paradox of tolerance, IMO. Treat tolerance as a social contract. An intolerant person has explicitly rejected the contract.

This is an asked and answered question.

Tolerance is not a moral stance, it is part of the social contract. Those that violate the social contract, like Nazis, are not protected by it. Paradox solved.

It's not a paradox, it's a social contract.

I am tolerant of everyone except those who are intolerant of people doing things that hurt no one and/or those who hurt others.

You don't like Nazis? Tolerance granted.

You don't like trans people? Tolerance denied.

It's incredibly simple to understand, isn't paradoxical and is easy to live by.

Why are we so tied to the word tolerance specifically? Decency, kindness, courtesy, and empathy seem to be more what were all aiming for anyway.

Is it cuz tolerance is the bare minimum? (This is a genuine question)

Karl Popper is also the guy who wrote about falsifiability

Big brain right there.

Edit: fixed the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.

This is a common misconception about the Paradox of Tolerance, and I'm going to reference the person who invented it: Karl Popper in his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies:

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.

Popper argues that we should tolerate intolerance only up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his position.

The graphic above states that we should not tolerate "movements" which preach "intolerance." This is a subjective standard. I think Islam preaches intolerance. By this standard, I would be justified in banning all Muslims from immigrating to Denmark. This is why Popper used the much clearer standard of physical violence. Any modern society must tolerate disagreement - including "intolerant" disagreement. We resolve that intolerance at the ballot box. We cannot allow physical violence. No, someone saying mean words is not physical violence.

I think tolerance is simply a liberal idea, and it's been a demonstrably exploitable one. The moment a reactionary says "aren't you supposed to be tolerant", I simply don't know where they're getting that from. I tolerate what I want, and the intolerant don't get to invoke my tolerance.

Understand tolerance as a social contract and not as a moral obligation. Tolerance is about piece within a society, not about right or wrong. If you do, there is no paradox, because the contract is broken and therefore does no longer apply. It also allows you to counter far right ideologies from whomever they come.

It's funny how the word "tolerance" already implies that something is bad but you just act as if it's not. You wouldn't tolerate having enough food and water, you'd only tolerate the lack thereof.

It's closer to the social contract of tolerance. If the contract is broken then the gloves are off, no one gives a damn about the universalist Christians but the Evangelicals are broadly hated on average, hell even my bloodthist is generally more socially acceptable than your average Evangelical since my focus is moreso directly on folks and entities who cause harm through secondary or primary effect.

The whole confusion comes from upholding tolerance as a principle or ideal rather than actually understanding it's purpose. When people look at it that way, they either accept it or reject it, but both of those are wrong.

Where does the idea of tolerance come from? Hundreds of years ago, the West was wracked with constant wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants, on top of witch hunts, crusades, inquisitions, the whole "scarlet letter" thing. It was after this whole mess that people decided that it wasn't worth it anymore, and that we should just call truces, that we should allow each other to practice different faiths without coercion. Eventually, this expanded to other aspects beyond just religious beliefs, however, the fundamental core of what it is is that truce between religious factions.

In many cases, it is possible to discuss disagreements and resolve things, or, it is possible to coexist while believing different things. Whether the sacremental wine turns into the blood of Christ literally or figuratively is a perfect example of that.

However, it should be noted that this was a practical compromise driven by a balance of power between the respective sides. The word, "tolerance" should not be confused with the word, "acceptance." To tolerate something implies that you wish it were different, and you're just putting up with it out of necessity. It is a truce, a contract, a ceasefire, between different parties with conflicting aims and ideals. Go back in time and give either side modern assault rifles, a clear advantage, and they'd drop the idea of tolerance in a heartbeat.

When a ceasefire is violated, a certain degree of patience is called for. Itchy trigger fingers can destroy a peace that both sides are invested in maintaining. However, if one side is able to repeatedly and brazenly violate the ceasefire without consequence, then the ceasefire is essentially dead and no longer serves a meaningful purpose.

To view tolerance as a principle and ideal in itself means that you've already decided whether you're going to uphold or abandon the ceasefire before you've even seen how the other side is acting. Accepting tolerance on principle means letting people take advantage of you, while rejecting it on principle means alienating potential allies.

Obviously, it's impossible to tolerate the right because they are so intent on aggression against vulnerable people. However, and this is true, it is possible to tolerate different perspectives on the left, while disagreeing with them. Rather than letting one's experiences with the right inform their approach to tolerance in general, we should look at what is actually minimally necessary to coexist and potentially collaborate with people we disagree with. Instead of logicking one's way into saying that anyone who disagrees on any point is technically being intolerant and therefore paradox of intolerance, deplatform them and treat them exactly like fascists, consider whether they are actually being bigoted and intransigent, or whether it's more mundane disagreement.

Absolutes are absolute bullshit.

Who's in charge of what is and is not "intolerant"?

that's the problem

For example, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are ALL intolerant faiths by their own admission.

I have conflicting thoughts about this.

More often than not this explanation is just used as a excuse to hate whatever group you want while labeling yourself as the good one. But applied to the ultimate consequences most people would still be intolerant.

The classical example of not tolerating nazis because they are intolerant to others, is used because it's a flawless example. The definition of a nazi is a person who wants to eliminate other groups from society just because what they are. A tolerant society cannot exist with them, so they have to go. Perfect.

But we have real life problems when we move from the perfect example to practical cases.

1The "everyone I don't like is a nazi" problem. Someone who wants to be a good intolerant just have to label their opponents as nazis, no matter if they are or not. Just the label is good enough.

While Nazis are used as a classical example. The more pure definition is, that tolerant society should not tolerate people who are intolerant. Thus, only allowed intolerance is the intolerance to the intolerant, any other type of intolerance should then make you a valid target for intolerance.

And here is when I see the biggest problem. That society doesn't usually fit most people values. I would give you several examples. Take billionaires, take robbers, take whatever kind of person you don't like, not only don't like but you don't want anyone like that in your society, for reasons different to them being intolerant. There are other undesirable values in a person that sometimes are worse than intolerance. The lack of tolerance to those people really puts you in the same spot as the Nazi in the paradox of intolerance. As you are hating on people for reasons different than they not being tolerant.

I see two honest solutions and one dishonest one.

The first honest solution is to strictly adhere to the idea of being tolerant everyone but the intolerant idea. Which will imply a higher effort to accept people in the society that you currently don't want to accept. Embrace that tolerance is the ultimate goal and just reject the intolerant, accepting everyone else, no matter what.

The second honest solution is to reject complete unconditional tolerance to everyone but the intolerant. Create a more strict set of values of what the society should tolerate. And embrace the idea that complete unconditional tolerance is a not the goal.

The dishonest solution is just lie about it. Seek excuses, loopholes or overcomplicated cherry picking reasonings on why the people you don't want to tolerate are actually intolerants and then covered by the paradox of intolerance and be happy with it.

To each their own. In the later years I'm feeling myself leaning more for the second honest solution. Unconditional tolerance is not a goal per se. I try to create a developed moral system that could actually be universal and that everyone and anyone could and should follow. And think that maybe I should not tolerate anyone that breaks this ethical rules. Basically instead of saying that the "golden rule" is to be tolerant and that's the only rule that people is not allowed to break. My golden rule is more on the lines of "be a good person", which is harder to define but I think it's more solid, and that's the only rule that should not be broken.

And here ends my TED talk.

There are different types and expressions of tolerance, so I think getting tied up in knots about a mythical all-encompassing tolerance that no cunt on Earth preaches (not even Jesus or the Buddha) is probably a side quest that doesn't need completing. It's like two linguists who've read a class of philosophy having a grammar nazi stand-off. You may as well include being abused and conned by criminals in that kind of tolerance, which is obviously stupid, but it's no more stupid than thinking your personal philosophy is threatened when faced with a nazi whose goals you wanna prevent coming to fruition.

Tolerating people who have characteristics that are not necessarily of their own choosing is not in the same ballpark as tolerating those who want to eradicate that first group. "Leave people alone" is better, it includes preventing the non-leaving alone of people by cunts, e.g. nazis, with no paradoxes involved. "But leave me alone to be a nazi!" ok, what does being a nazi involve? "The sterilisation and extermination of..." lemme just stop you there. Done!

Paradoxically, the paradox of tolerance is most often cited in the course of branding someone as "intolerant" and thereby excusing your intolerance of them.

Its a problem of semantics. Who really is sufficiently intolerant to be intolerable?

Legalizing tolerance is a method co-opt a liberal regime into fascism.

Take anti-semitism laws in germany and protesting the Israeli genocide of palestinians for example.

Or the UK...

A counter example, Ireland.

I've got one for you:

If you wish to be tolerated, you must yourself be tolerant.

"Tolerance has a limit. Beyond that limit, intolerance becomes duty."

• Rig Védā

Counter bigots with violent intolerance. The best way to deal with a Nazi, Zionist, Klansman, etc. is with a bullet.