The paradox itself is more rhetorical than anything because we don’t live in a perfectly tolerant society in the first place. And humans are not robots that need to strictly follow a code that contradicts itself, so even if it were law it wouldn’t be a paradox.
But it does work rhetorically because the paradox comes from the contradiction between “tolerate everything” and “everything includes the intolerant” by limiting the scope from “everything” to “everything that generally tries to be tolerant”.
the paradox comes from the contradiction between “tolerate everything” and “everything includes the intolerant” by limiting the scope from “everything” to “everything that generally tries to be tolerant”.
The contradiction is between the rhetorical ideal and the practical consequence. “Intolerance of intolerance” is a cute rhetorical trick, but what it amounts to in practice is a brawl between rivals. You’re suggesting the Hatfields and the McCoys have solved the paradox of tolerance by endlessly feuding with one another.
It’s just a resolution of the paradox, not a recipe for Utopia. Ultimately, I don’t think there is a simple way to determine what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Eg, the resolved version would suggest I’m wrong for not wanting to tolerate gender reveals that result in massive wildfires.
At the end of the day, the wisdom I take from it is, “it’s stupid to tolerate those who won’t tolerate you”.
The paradox itself is more rhetorical than anything because we don’t live in a perfectly tolerant society in the first place. And humans are not robots that need to strictly follow a code that contradicts itself, so even if it were law it wouldn’t be a paradox.
But it does work rhetorically because the paradox comes from the contradiction between “tolerate everything” and “everything includes the intolerant” by limiting the scope from “everything” to “everything that generally tries to be tolerant”.
The contradiction is between the rhetorical ideal and the practical consequence. “Intolerance of intolerance” is a cute rhetorical trick, but what it amounts to in practice is a brawl between rivals. You’re suggesting the Hatfields and the McCoys have solved the paradox of tolerance by endlessly feuding with one another.
It’s just a resolution of the paradox, not a recipe for Utopia. Ultimately, I don’t think there is a simple way to determine what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Eg, the resolved version would suggest I’m wrong for not wanting to tolerate gender reveals that result in massive wildfires.
At the end of the day, the wisdom I take from it is, “it’s stupid to tolerate those who won’t tolerate you”.
So the solution is to… do what? Rude gestures? Invent a new slur? Ethnic cleansing?
I don’t think there’s a simple solution either. It’s very context-dependent.
But the rhetorical ideal has never referred to tolerating everything.