I like to think of it as multiple contracts or rules that create different and incompatible kinds of societies, and everyone has to decide what they prefer. E.g. do you want to live in a Nazi society or a pluralistic society? They are fundamentally incompatible, so supporting one means you cannot tolerate the other.

There is no paradox in this, and also no question about who starts the intolerance or whose intolerance is justified. We all just pick which path we prefer, and what we should do follows from there.

ITT: people positive they have broken the paradox.

Doesn't this argument pre-suppose that we all abide by their idea of tolerance and then use that as evidence for itself?

But we should view it as a moral standard.

So, where do we all stand on the "do unto others as you would have others do on to you" philosophy?

there is no Paradox to disappear, nor there is a solution, a Paradox is a paradox, this is like trying to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma with some clever workaround.

just no.

Let's posit a society is totally tolerant, you have a tolerant society

if someone starts to act intolerant, you have to options:

• If you tolerate it, then you now have intolerance in your society.

• If you don't tolerate it, or put it another way you are intolerant towards there intolerance and remove them from your society, then you now have still have intolerance in your society.

that's it, that's the paradox, it has no solution or clever workarounds it's just what it is.

This also doesn't mean that not tolerating nazis and someone not tolerating the existence of PoCs for example is the same thing.

So, when do we demand global sanctions on Israel?