So you don't oppose internet access being blocked, you just want to be the one to control who's blocked? Or you are only in favor of blocking access to those who block others, so you're willing to sacrifice your access to block theirs?
This doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying they should block us? The point would be moot if they’re already blocked. Are you saying we should let their elites indulge in our media when their own citizens can’t? Because if so you’ve completely ignored my statement about the paradox of intolerance
I'm saying we shouldn't block people from the internet as punishment for blocking people from the internet, we are committing the crime we're punishing. I realize that there isn't an external power that could block US access like the US can do to North Korea, which is why my original post used "sacrifice."
If you use violence to stop someone from using violence, you either reduced the amount of violence done or kept it the same. There can be some ethical uses there. The concept can be spread to some other areas, but only ones in which the intolerance could hamper the intolerant, which I don't think is the case here.
It's typically known as the "paradox of tolerance" by the way, your mistaken version didn't ring any bells, and I assumed you thought the argument ended in a logical paradox.
