Nono, it’s not a paradox for where it starts, but for where it ends. OFC we shouldn’t tolerate disruptors. Though once a war turns hot, it can be very difficult to tell who is the true agressor. Especially when both sides are calling each other all sprts of nasty things. To an ignorant, they can look the same, and there are a lot of ignorant people.
It’s not a paradox for the principles it describes, but the reality it creates. Calling it a paradox is a stark warning to avoid appearing as the intolerant and to never lose the context of who is doing what and what for. If you boil it down to, “don’t start none, won’t be none”, then you’ve already lost the context.
gbzm@piefed.social 20 hours ago
Tolerance is not an absolute principle, it's just a social contract. People who breach it aren't protected by it; end of paradox.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Nono, it’s not a paradox for where it starts, but for where it ends. OFC we shouldn’t tolerate disruptors. Though once a war turns hot, it can be very difficult to tell who is the true agressor. Especially when both sides are calling each other all sprts of nasty things. To an ignorant, they can look the same, and there are a lot of ignorant people.
It’s not a paradox for the principles it describes, but the reality it creates. Calling it a paradox is a stark warning to avoid appearing as the intolerant and to never lose the context of who is doing what and what for. If you boil it down to, “don’t start none, won’t be none”, then you’ve already lost the context.