The shows that unlimited tolerance for intolerance is untenable. But it doesn't say what the limits should be.

I often find this brought up in response to those who oppose speech restrictions, as a way to justify such restrictions. The paradox can help show why some restrictions may be justified, but it doesn't say what they should be or whether they are justified at all in a given situation.

This paradox (or any paradox) should be the beginning, not the end, of discussion.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.