Paradoxes can change how we reason. Being able to think about them allows oneself to refine an understanding to a static context of parts. Once that is complete, a paradox can be resolved by defining a logic of which no paradox arises, and testing it to ensure that, which is still NP hard to prove but, for real life, some people just like to make points and feel smart and talk about things they maybe never got to talk about before.
I wasn't really disagreeing with anything, I was breaking down the article for people who don't have a WSJ subscription, don't want one, and don't want to bother with the archive link.
I feel the article is mostly pedantic fluff, reiterating a concept that most people are already familiar with in order to just say what she says in the final paragraph: That she can be a tolerant person, tolerate people, while still disagreeing with their viewpoint. Basically responding to the whole "you can't be tolerant and hate intolerance" canard.
My issue isn't with her stance on paradoxes, it's with the fact that she doesn't say anything.
You can call it pedantic fluff, I call it a coupled fear of having one's own mind appear hypermasculinized while maintaining sensitivity to multiple perspectives of listening to many individuals without being listened to directly.
Big picture. The devil is in the details.
Edit: maybe wait a few hours before downvoting next time? at least give me the opportunity to not see it as being likely to be you
A user cannot downvote a reply to their own comment. (And complaining about downvoting is never productive.)
Huzzah!
Keep insulting -> make my perspective stronger.
in original comment you were claming that “she wants to think logically” as if women don’t do that, and that statement sounds insulting to women... so...
If you don't want to understand my perspective, you don't want to.