[vorotato]

The position "Your people shouldn't exist", or "Your people shouldn't be in this country" to be specific. Tolerance to all but the intolerant. This is because if we tolerate the intolerant, they'll just eliminate tolerance, and then nobody will get to express their views.

[bsenftner]

You describe the Paradox of Tolerance: for a tolerant society to exist, it must be intolerant towards intolerance, or the intolerant slowly dominate.

This is the paradox enabling many to blindly say Antifa is a racist or fascist organization. No, they are the intolerant side of tolerance laying down the law. Without them, any tolerant society devolves slowly to fascism.

[peoplewindow]

It's not a paradox, it's just doublethink.

The key is to realise that the "Antifa" agenda has nothing to do with tolerance, regardless of what they claim.

[vorotato]

That's not actually an argument? Also the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox and is a component of decision theory, and is a pretty well understood mathematical construct. So you can't argue that the Paradox of Tolerance isn't a thing you can only argue that the Nazis and KKK aren't intolerant. Most people would disagree with that...

[peoplewindow]

The "Paradox" you are citing was posed by a philosopher, not a mathematician. Philosophy is not mathematics, no matter how much they might like the association.

This isn't as complicated or confounding as you seem to think. The "fascists" that Antifa think they're fighting aren't attempting to overthrow the government or build armies of SS-style street thugs. They are usually just protesting, or sometimes trying to give a speech at a university.

Speech should be countered with more speech. Violence, with violence in the proportion needed to stop it.

Antifa's agenda is to use violence to suppress speech. Like a lot of self-righteous activity it is rooted in hypocrisy. Their goal is to stop people from disagreeing with their political agenda by labelling any such disagreement as "Nazi" or "fascist" and then claiming their violence is justified as otherwise they'd be "tolerating intolerance". It is doublethink.

[vorotato]

I never mentioned antifa and I don't care to discuss whether violence is or is not effective at making social change. I'm personally not a violent person, so that's not my path.

Secondly it is a component of decision theory and yes philosophers can propose mathematical propositions that do get rigorously investigated by real mathematicians. Saying a philosopher can't do math is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[bsenftner]

"Antifa's agenda is to use violence to suppress speech." Wrong. Antifa's entire purpose is to pose as the alternative thugs, ready to act should the intolerance groups choose execute their more overt agendas. I have participated, and the strict line we draw is only interact when someone's person space is violated. As a basic rule, that's pretty solid.

[meric]

The paradox of tolerance is false - the intolerant can change their minds - it's their intolerant ideas that must be attacked, not the person whose minds hold those ideas. The persons always deserve to be treated with as if they are fellow human beings, because they are.

Those ones who would not tolerate those with intolerant ideas, have intolerant ideas too, and they must be convinced their ideas are wrong.

[vorotato]

The paradox of tolerance isn't false, and doesn't make the claims you're saying are false. I think you're conflating the person who responded to me in support of antifa and tolerating vs not tolerating. There are many ways to be intollerant, and violence does not have to be one of those ways. I won't have the discussion around the effectiveness of violence in changing discourse as I am non-violent so it is not my place.