stupidpol

When you juxtapose 'tolerance' with anything else and its antithesis you immediately see how this isn't a complex concept. At all.

Pacifism and warfare. (Are we still pacifist if we just do a little war, as a treat?) Anti-racism and white supremacists. (Can racism be ended by racially segregating?) Religion and atheism. (Can much can a religion abandon the framework or principles of faith?)

Things are negated by their opposites.

The quote in that image seems to characterize his words differently than the full context would imply.

"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

The fists or pistols component was a consequence of tolerating the intolerant, not a precondition for intolerable tolerance.

It could very well be that you simply don't agree with Popper.

In my time pretty much everybody knew what Popper's Paradox of Tolerance meant. (probably due to the amount of Germans who lived through part of this, or had parents who lived through this)

Germany is sort of the exact opposite of what you describe though, so this is a bit confusing. The Nazi ideology is criminalized. This is inline with the described behavior of the first comic.

You might look into Rawls, who seems to have a belief more inline with what you describe.

You're not missing anything.

Popular belief of philosophical concepts almost always results in misinterpretation and misguided belief of the concept, usually from overgeneralization and oversimplification of the concept to make it accessible to a lay audience. This isn't any different with science or other areas of specialized knowledge.

The vast majority of keyboard warriors are armchair expects who have no expertise in any of this, but are using the crib notes version of this argument to basically just go around feeling smart and superior and using it as a metaphor to club other over the head with. They are not interested in the original context of the argument, it's limitations, or it's critiques

I think my favorite other example of this is Kant's Categorical Imperative. The lay interpretation of it gets toss around and overgeneralized, and people try to claim it's 'stupid' coming up with stupid examples that make it seem absurd, like using it to justify eating cheeseburgers all day. But that takes away the original intent and context of the argument which was specifically about moral actions, totally ignoring the limits and framework of the Categorical Imperative... which define it narrowly. put another way... the categorical imperative is not a 'rule of thumb'... but people often treat it that way. The paradox of tolerance is similarly misunderstood.

anyway, don't take anyone seriously on the internet who starts quoting the paradox of tolerance. take it seriously if it's in a properly sourced article or book. Not some dumb comic strip that is necessarily dumb it down for a lay audience as in info-graphic.

Here is my crazy idea... go read Popper if you want to understand it. And then go read his critics. Go to the source rather than letting other people's hearsay about his work be your guide to his thought.

I've heard it described as a contract instead of a paradox. You agree to be tolerant and get the benefit of being tolerated. Those that don't subscribe to the contract aren't covered by it.

Hair-splitting nonsense, and the alleged correction is bait.

Popper's paradox is self-fulfilling. Fighting people with an identity strengthens their identity. Their convictions are caused by something which most likely can be changed.