not all censorship is the same. ignoring that is not only intellectually dishonest, but to assert otherwise is to argue in bad faith.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
The widely cited “paradox of intolerance” is invoked erroneously; the tolerance of “disagreeable information” does not require that one agree with intolerant uses of force against a person. It is quite a different thing to allow someone to read someone write positively about “the virtue of stealing” (a philosophy which most people would reject), and quite another to say that one must allow a thief to steal from them.
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.”
Paradox of tolerance
Agreed, this is sensible moderation.
this is censorship and not thought to be sensible moderation by a lot of people
Are those “a lot of people” nazis?
not all censorship is the same. ignoring that is not only intellectually dishonest, but to assert otherwise is to argue in bad faith.
Paradox of Tolerance
The widely cited “paradox of intolerance” is invoked erroneously; the tolerance of “disagreeable information” does not require that one agree with intolerant uses of force against a person. It is quite a different thing to allow someone to read someone write positively about “the virtue of stealing” (a philosophy which most people would reject), and quite another to say that one must allow a thief to steal from them.
stealing != anti-Semitism
False Equivalence