I don't get it

That's an interesting idea. This is actually one of my least favorite quotes from Carl jung. I don't know if it really had that much weight before either. I think older Generations like this quote because it gave them a reason to be confrontational. When in reality, confrontational people are just defensive. They have internalized bullying. So if somebody is being bullied, they have every right to defend themself. They shouldn't really need a reason from a random quote.

So I think older Generations liked this quote for that reason. And I think that partly motivated Carl Jung to say this. But at the same time you can also see how he was just saying that we need to know who we are. Basically it's just saying to know thyself.

He's the father of modern psychology. What more do you want before you admit that something is a deep thought? Is there any such thing as a deep thought?

Sometimes things can be indirectly motivating. This isn't telling you go out there and get shit done. But it is telling you to look Inward and get things done inside.

And on the other hand, avoiding judgment is not being manipulative

Idk. I think this is trying to shame people who are happy. It's trying to make everyone miserable because they feel miserable.

Well, it seems like you need to take a big step

They say to take things one step at a time. You probably need to make a big shift because your perspective is negative. You need to shift into positive

Words have connotations. Skepticism is different from critical thinking

i can help you.

let me walk you through it.

so to start off, ask yourself, why are you cutting alcohol?

>improves quality

well you have to make sense though

that didnt explain anything.

plus, the claim the article is making, is actually false. the tolerance paradox is correct as it is being used. the article is saying the tolerance paradox isn't correct. i applaud the author for trying to question things, but they missed the mark, because they should have realized that their hypothesis was false when they looked closer at the paradox.

It's only funny if you pretend you don't care about others

should those who spread the lies be held accountable like a person shouting fire in a crowded cinema?

For the love of God, yes

Edit: I hate that they didn't respond to you. You clearly gave THE answer that corrects their mistake. Yet they straight up refuse to acknowledge it.

I think it's actually about emotion, rather than logic.

Leftists often use logic to argue with regressives, because leftists accidentally treat them as if they're being rational.

But I think in reality, the regressives are operating based off of emotion. Then they use logic to hide that. So really, he's just angry about something. He's probably mad about general societal issues, like small micro aggressions that he receives regularly.

Because there's just no way he actually got to that conclusion through logic. And he refused to acknowledge your sound argument. That shows that he is blocked by something. Im guessing it's some kind of emotional damage.

Maybe he sees your comment as some kind of insult. He feels "stupid" when he's corrected. So some kind of shame emotion. Or maybe he just gets rage whenever he encounters any political topic. Similar to road rage. He can't communicate, or he feels out of control. So he feels bottled, and starts spluttering, and becomes angry and rageful. Maybe the rage is another cover up for his feeling of shame and inadequacy.

So I think leftists need to reach out and help these people understand how to deal with conflicts. In order to resolve conflicts, you have to just step back and find a neutral center in your mind, where you can feel calm and uneffected.

I think you're being way too generous. Intolerance is very common. It's not all rodney king or massacres or horrendous brutality. It is often idle and minor abuses, that are just quiet enough to be socially acceptable. They do just enough to be able to get away with it. Those that do more than that, obviously don't get away with it.

For example, when an angry poor person says "welcome to reality" to a small child who gets mistreated and tries to defend themselves. That is a form of intolerance. And it's a common saying and widely used.

I guess it's not directly tied to any demographic. But it is generally hateful behavior. Maybe it's more just an attitude of intolerance, and melodrama. By your definition, tolerance is allowing something to exist without interference. So in this example, they would be interfering with someone's right to defend themselves, or to experience happiness.

I guess you probably didn't make this comment with the hopes of being disproven or argued with. And I'm sorry for doing that. But I do honestly think you might be mistaken.

Yeah this article is complete garbage.

I don't think "it's pointless to be tolerant" though.

But I think I understand what you're getting at. Tolerance is a sort of oxymoron in and of itself.

If you're truly "tolerant", you don't really see it as tolerating.

But tolerance is still important. Because, we're not perfect. Even those of us who are truly tolerant. We still need to actively engage tolerance, or patience, when we encounter new things, or difficult things

That sentence doesn't quite make sense

They're not asking a question. People can make statements and implications in the form of a question. Don't play dumb.

There's a healthy amount of denial behind your logic

What is eco??

They have freedom of speech. As do we all. They don't forfeit their freedoms once they do that. That behavior is simply not covered under the umbrella of "free speech." Just like shouting fire in a crowded theater is not covered. Or in England, fighting words are not covered.

You are being defensive and biased, by the way. When you are looking at a philosophical question (or any question really), you want to step back from your emotions. Think rationally about the topic. Acknowledge your emotions, because they have indications as well, but don't let yourself be ruled by them. Sometimes emotions can cause to make mistakes. Like the saying about fighting when you're angry. The angry man always loses in a fight. Because his opponent can easily predict his moves, and he also completely loses control. So his swings become wild and erratic. Rather than controlled and strong and striking true and on target.

"Though the interpretation of Popper in the discourse thus misses the point, the original problem remains. When are ideas dangerous and intolerant enough to be censored, and when should they be fought with words?"

The original problem does not remain. The intolerance paradox is succinct and clear. There is no confusion. Any confusion the author has, is irrational.

It's just putting yourself in their shoes.

The premise is nihilistic, pretending it's not.