• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    The person who put forward the idea, or gave it a name, was a pretty notable philosopher who was notably in favor of a discourse driven liberal democracy, and against fascism.

    He didn’t mean paradox in the sense of “self contradictory and unresolvable” like the liars paradox. He meant it in the sense of “seemingly contradictory”.

    In order to have the most tolerant, rational discourse driven society possible there are some things you cannot tolerate, nor engage in discussion with , because if you cannot be persuaded there cannot be rational discussion.

    So the paradox was named by a person explaining why you don’t have to listen to Nazis just because you want to be open to new ideas and perspectives.

    Coming to the conclusion that it’s not contradictory is agreeing with the argument that it’s okay to just tell Nazis to fuck off.

    • Bilb!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      I see, well said. I’m not well informed on the absolute origin of the phrase. It wasn’t clear to me if the philosopher was responding to people saying that being intolerant of Nazis/other types of bigots in the pursuit of tolerance of diverse types of people was contradictory and therefore not morally or ethically sound, or just spontaneous hand-wringing.