Ultimately, my argument is that the "paradox of tolerance" is intellectually dishonest answer to cognitive dissonance. It's refusing to accept responsibility for selecting in-groups and out-groups.
It's not prescriptive. These divisions are a natural conclusion of moral systems. Acting on these divisions is a natural conclusion of other moral systems.
You both completely miss the argument. Cile is strawmanning, vas is again viewing from the omniscient or opposing viewpoint.
Virtually all intolerants perceive themselves as victims. Permitting "intolerance of intolerance" is just accelerationist, "might makes right" ideology.
Unironically yes? Replacement theory, blood libel, global elitism... Whatever the angle, lots of -isms expouse roots in victimhood.
Edit: accidentally double posted
That view is fine and dandy with an an omniscient lens of who's the reactionary intolerant and who is the originator of intolerance.
You should try picking up some
Oh, this is going to be a fun thread!