Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
https://youtu.be/goePYJ74Ydg?si=sunG6ESBoNsEsxNC i feel like everyone should watch this video
They was cool, but your thought process is a mystery. are you thinking the tolerant are green beards or something?
Just making a comparison between altruism and tolerance. It works amazingly well if everyone is altruistic, but irl that will never happen. There will always be hawks that take advantage of the fact that everyone else is altruistic. In doing so, hawks become the winning strategy and beat out the green beards. They rise to dominance and at the end everyone is worse off. The answer proposed in game theory (or more accurately, one of many) is a strategy called "Tit-for-tat". Essentially, be an altruist until you're met with hawk behavior, and then stop being altruistic to the hawk. I thought that was very similar to tolerance. It benefits everyone, so long as they are also tolerant but gets easily destroyed by intolerance. I don't care too much about the comparison itself, but most social exchanges can be better understood though game theory.
A lot of people are unfortunately dumb enough to misinterpret this concept as a justification to push authoritarianism. You see these people a lot on Lemmy. They view this paradox as an excuse to punish and silence opposition under the pretense that they're intolerant. Like no, you're not fighting intolerance with these tactics, you are the intolerance that needs to be fought. Not tolerating the intolerant doesn't mean abandoning all your principles and going full on 1984.
Ironic seeing how much lemmy has a hard on for the Hamas antisemitic terrorists