Paradox of tolerance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Paul Graham is intolerant of intolerants of intolerance.
I think to solve the paradox the way to go is not to solve by principle but weight on how much intolerance you are applying in order to prevent some other intolerance to someone else.
"Your freedom ends where someone else begins"
EXAMPLE
Person A: People from group X are more likely to be BAD at math.
Person B: Don't be racist/sexist/x-ist.
Person C (Paul Graham): Hey B, you are using x-ist but is the statement true or false? If the statement from A is true, then A should be allowed to say it without B calling him/her x-ist.
Well it depends on what's the approximation and opinionated consequences.
Maybe group X is worse at math by a small percentage 1% and A is removing numbers to make a larger generalization that loose its context and is just demeaning of the group X.
This is solvable by stating actual figures without implying consequences from it.
Person A should have said:
The study ALFA showed results where group X was 10% more likely to be BAD at math than group Y and Z.
I will pass you the link to the paper of the study so you can review it.
Paul Graham is intolerant of intolerants of intolerance. I think to solve the paradox the way to go is not to solve by principle but weight on how much intolerance you are applying in order to prevent some other intolerance to someone else.
"Your freedom ends where someone else begins"
EXAMPLE
Person A: People from group X are more likely to be BAD at math.
Person B: Don't be racist/sexist/x-ist.
Person C (Paul Graham): Hey B, you are using x-ist but is the statement true or false? If the statement from A is true, then A should be allowed to say it without B calling him/her x-ist.
Well it depends on what's the approximation and opinionated consequences. Maybe group X is worse at math by a small percentage 1% and A is removing numbers to make a larger generalization that loose its context and is just demeaning of the group X. This is solvable by stating actual figures without implying consequences from it. Person A should have said: The study ALFA showed results where group X was 10% more likely to be BAD at math than group Y and Z. I will pass you the link to the paper of the study so you can review it.