Ask Lemmy

Yes, I agree, it's not always black in white, but your example is a bad example, I don't care the language someone says that, "The Jews should be eliminated" is an intolerant statement, just as much as "The Muslims should be eliminated", regardless of who says it, it's intolerant and should not be excused by someone's skin color.

Also we must clarify if we're talking about moral or legal argument, as I said morally I think you're okay punching someone in the face when they said you should be eliminated, legally you should probably have some proof of that.

With what level of force are you going to attack them?

With forço proportional to the threat, just like the moral basis for any any self defense. You can't shoot someone who pushed you, but someone who threaten your life is morally (and if you have proof of the threat and it is believable also legally) fair game. Same thing applies here, someone stating "X should be prevented from voting" should not legally be allowed to be punched, but should have his voting rights removed temporarily.

Or force to the extent that they die from it? After all nothing’s safer than a dead attacker.

Yes, if they threaten your, or anyone's, life then killing them is self defense and morally okay in my opinion. So someone claiming "all X should be exterminated" can morally be killed.

Ok but now you’re the one talking about extermination… so what do we do with you? The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that there’s a Paradox of Intolerance, too.

Yes, that's why it's a paradox, it wouldn't be a paradox if it didn't have some contradiction in it. But that contradiction is easy to fix, in my examples X must be a superset of people that includes tolerant people. This means that Jews or Muslims are an invalid X, since there are tolerant Jews or Muslims, but "people who wish (non-X) dead" are not, e.g. "people who wish Muslims dead" are a valid X.