The "paradox of tolerance" is that it cannot be tolerant toward what it defines as "intolerance."
That creates a blank cheque (worse even than a blank slate) to redefine anything you hate as "intolerance."
This makes a hateful totalitarian regime.
However, more broadly: as a philosophy, "tolerance" is inherent paradoxical and therefore harmful.
intolerance is like a mental immune system.
it is the means of opposing what is degrading to you or those you care about.
an immune system can be weakened from severe experience or poor constitution, or it can be turned against what isn't worth attacking due to a minor but unharmful difference being spotted.
then there is intolerance that becomes self-hate over an unreasonable thing, which is an autoimmune disease.
Expanding on that: "intolerance" means not wanting things that do not further your goal as a civilization.
For example, diversity, socialism, consumerism, messianic religions, etc.
Things that localize themselves like dudes growing weed in their backyard for their own consumption do not fall under this rubric.
In my view, neither do homosexuality or abortion.
Tolerate individuality... not systemic dysfunction.
yes in which case you should say: i am intolerant of the commercialising of weed or the overselling of contraception, or the vulharity of homosexuality, all of which fit under the consumerism/materialism/etc. the individuals themselves do little on their own without something inciting numbers of them to do public bad behaviours.
I am intolerant of the commercialization of those things, yes.
This is why I think weed should be decriminalized not legalized.
It is why I think homosexuality, swinging, furry, etc. should be kept private.
These make sense to me. I like the Canadian law on weed: you can grow up to four plants for personal use as well.
But go on some jihad to change the innate behaviors of others? Against natural selection, against common sense.
@amerika @doorroo @rats I used to think that about fetishes, that they should be kept private, but my stance on behavior in public spaces has become more libertarian. I think it should be the opposite, if a person doesn't want to see others living their lives in ways that make them sick, they need to stick to private property where such behavior is banned. Our concept of private property also needs to be reexamined, when I think of private property I think of a house on a plot, not a town, but there is no reason at all why a town, or even a city can't be private property. And the state can still come in if crazy shit is happening, using warrants, so it's not like it will be a free for all inside the private zones with like slaves and shit. It's just a way for everyone to be free. The people who can't stomach seeing degeneracy get to have safe spaces, and america as a state gets to remain libertine.
