Yes, or course. In fact, humanism to some degree requires an opposition to anti-human ideas, like intolerance, therefore a humanist is almost implicitly intolerant of intolerance, an earnest practicioner of the paradox.
Do you mean this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
The best summation of this was done in a speech by Kurt Vonnegut, Why my dog is not a humanist.
The full speech explains what you are going after.
No. People who call out the ‘tolerance paradox’ are misunderstanding social tolerance. Tolerance of other humans is part our social contract to live with each other without violence. If you abandon the social contract by being hateful or violent to others, you are no longer protected by it. There is no paradox.
Nobody “calls out” the tolerance paradox. It’s those who refuse to tolerate intolerance who call it the tolerance paradox.
by definition it is if you tolerate the intolerant, intolerance increases
If you abandon the social contract by being hateful or violent to others, you are no longer protected by it.
Pretty much the oldest rule of society and the first one established.
Outlaws are romanticized, but back in the day it was being such a shithead that you no longer had any protection under law.
Someone could rob, beat, and kill you in front of the sheriff and the mayor and nobody would do anything.
If you were going to ignore the rights of others, you would have zero rights. They turned to life’s of banditry in the wilderness because that was the only option. But most often they’d starve or be killed first.
