[chuckee]

How does that paradox square with the transition of intolerant societies into tolerant ones? Where intolerant attitudes were not only tolerated, but the norm?

If this was really a paradox, such a transition should be impossible. But since such transitions took place, the same forces that enabled them can also prevent a society from becoming intolerant.

Of course in practice this paradox is only ever invoked by those that get to define what counts as "intolerance", or those that agree with the current definition.

[toss1]

Humans have created a rather extensive historical record of seeking freedom from oppression in all forms, all of which involves intolerance. I.e., a large majority of humans want a tolerant environment

Most often, they do NOT actually manage to transform their intolerant society from within, but leave to find tolerance elsewhere. This is the most basic history of the worlds largest superpower - it's European inhabitants fled the various forms of intolerance at home, and then declared and fought for their independence when the rulers tried to extend their intolerance into the new lands.

This can also feedback to provide assistance to those still in the original lands. Also, the intolerance occasionally gets so bad that it will cause revolts and uprisings, which is typically how new tolerance is created.

The tolerant countries also can feedback and support such fights. One of the more notable ones was when Intolerance rose to a severe form in Germany in the 1920s, and we fought WWII to overcome it. Tens of millions died to fight intolerance, showing that fighting intolerance is a rather strong drive in humans.

I can think of few examples where tolerance gradually grew.

What happens is that a tolerant society is created first with great vigilance, and then after a few generations of getting comfortable with it, vigilance declines, and vacuous arguments like this pop up, attempting to separate freedom from responsibility for maintaining it, and an opening is created for the few to exercise their intolerance on the many.

So, nonsense, just because intolerant societies can be overthrown by the majority that just want to be left alone and 'live and let live' —and this usually requires massive effort and usually bloodshed —, that has zero bearing on whether intolerance can grow and drive out tolerance in a tolerant society.

In fact, the situation is the opposite.

If tolerance was the metastable state, then intolerance would never be able to grow in tolerant societies, yet it almost always does grow — and that paradox is how it does so.

[chuckee]

> European inhabitants fled the various forms of intolerance at home, and then declared and fought for their independence when the rulers tried to extend their intolerance into the new lands.

So what exactly was this "intolerance" that the UK tried to extend to the US? Does it still exist in the UK? What about in Canada, that waged no war for independence? What about the countries of the former Soviet union? Were they fighting against "intolerance" in WWII, and were beacons of tolerance after their victory? Heck, was the US? If I recall correctly, at the end of WWII, the US still had segregation and a whites-only immigration policy, which would not change until the Hart-Celler act 20 years later. Is that your idea of a tolerant society?

As long as you keep "tolerance" sufficiently vague, you can spin any tale you like.