Speaking of the paradox of tolerance, here's a pretentious analysis of Dirty Harry I came across in the wild
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
The people who think the paradox of tolerance is in any way insightful are retards. Repost from my comment in the other thread:
The presuppositions underlying "the paradox of tolerance" are A) that being Tolerant is necessary and good, and B) that our view of what to tolerate is correct. When you analyze "the paradox of tolerance" with these identified, it simply reduces down to, "societies can decide and enforce their social landscape" which is a blindingly banal thing to say. It also means that whoever is in power can enforce social rules, which is also obvious. Luckily, this is also an invitation for dissidents like us to accrue power.
It's a simple rhetorical device to try and give the Leftist an opportunity to say, "I should be in charge of the decisions of tolerance".
This is followed up with Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, whereby Harry Callahan becomes an absolute hero if he ignores the bank robberies and shoots someone in the head because they have a "Nixon Now" bumper sticker.