The problem is that people label everything and everyone “Nazi” or “fascist” these days and with that they justify not tolerating any type of experience or opinion they find uncomfortable.

This leads to basically ignoring a whole bunch of people. But their problems won’t stop simply because you ignore them. Instead you now have people who were on the verge to vote right wing, now definitely voting right wing because they feel the left ignores their problems (which is true).

It’s only a paradox because the creator of the infographic has oversimplified what intolerance is.

When nazis are intolerant of a minority group, or whatever their target is, are violent towards them.

When the general society is intolerant of nazis, they are not usually calling for nazis to be killed or harmed.

And the creator does not differentiate between how a government deals with nazi versus the people. A government may “tolerate” nazis when it comes to free speech, and then be “intolerant” of nazis when they commit violence, and arrest or prosecute them. The general populace, unlike the government, cannot prosecute nazis (legally), they can only shun them. The creator clumsily does not differentiate between legal consequences and social consequences.

Basically, the infographic creator is trying to both-sides this shit, when one side want ppl dead, while other side just want nazis to go away. They are not the same. Moronic, sophomoric, low IQ. Too bad this may actually work on some people. That’s the sad part.

If twelve people sit at a table with a Nazi, you have thirteen Nazis

I dislike the framing of this, specifically:

“When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant the tolerant ones end up being destroyed”

Implies that the intolerant are guarenteed victory. I vehemently disagree that this is true, and therefore would argue tolerating the bad actors is often a necessary evil to ensure that good actors are not unjustly censored. The risk of ‘another hitler’ is accepted this way of course but unless we as a society can demonstrate (if at all) that risk would be mitigated by the censorship of hate speech we have no good cause.

Its not a paradox.

Tolerance is a social contract.

If you refuse to be part of the social contract, then you do not receive its protection.

it is not paradoxical to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract to harm individuals or society. Being violently intolerant against them is nothing but acting in the defense of our own personhood, the personhood of our fellows, and the good of our society.