If you're tolerant of intolerance, you may be tolerant, but others will be intolerant. If you want a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance.
Of course to write it down like that, it sounds like they're the same kind of intolerance, but they're not, and that's also the solution to the paradox: it's intolerance of people who are simply being who they are, that's oppressive and therefore unacceptable, but intolerance of oppression is necessary if you don't want oppression.
Copyleft vs permissive is kinda the same thing. I hadn't really looked at it that way yet, but I see the similarity.
> If you want a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance.
But what's the limit of this process? The end state will continue to be intolerant of intolerance, because people will continue to think bad things.
All that means is that your "tolerance" has a clearly defined limit.
This comes up all the time. I pointed out the case with war. There's also crime. We respect the rights of others, so we don't steal, except when we fine criminals, we don't imprison, except for the prisons we have, we don't kill, except in self-defense and to execute.
No one ever describes those as "paradoxes" because they're not.
As to why people would describe this particular case as a paradox, I'm going to avoid getting into ideology.
If you're tolerant of intolerance, you may be tolerant, but others will be intolerant. If you want a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance.
Of course to write it down like that, it sounds like they're the same kind of intolerance, but they're not, and that's also the solution to the paradox: it's intolerance of people who are simply being who they are, that's oppressive and therefore unacceptable, but intolerance of oppression is necessary if you don't want oppression.
Copyleft vs permissive is kinda the same thing. I hadn't really looked at it that way yet, but I see the similarity.