> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
People point to the Paradox of Tolerance like is a gospel straight from your preferred deity, something absolute and self-evident and universally true and universally applicable.
I personally think the thesis of the Paradox of Tolerance has merit, but far too often I see it used as a blunt object to bludgeon dissenting opinions, with people telling themselves they are doing good and are protecting society.
(And no, I dn NOT deny the Holocaust, and yes, I do think Holocaust denial is a big problem which got only bigger recently and needs addressing)
Agreed. I have seen most of the time when people bring this they are usually of type 'As long as intolerants are of my favorite type they are fine' Anything else is like "ah let me pull my nuclear weapon "Paradox of Tolerance".
> It might be worth considering The Paradox of Tolerance
Or the slippery slope fallacy, as it is known in less ideological circles. The "paradox" simply asserts that a tolerant society will be usurped by intolerant actors. It is in all respects a slippery slope argument.