Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Just making a comparison between altruism and tolerance. It works amazingly well if everyone is altruistic, but irl that will never happen. There will always be hawks that take advantage of the fact that everyone else is altruistic. In doing so, hawks become the winning strategy and beat out the green beards. They rise to dominance and at the end everyone is worse off. The answer proposed in game theory (or more accurately, one of many) is a strategy called “Tit-for-tat”. Essentially, be an altruist until you’re met with hawk behavior, and then stop being altruistic to the hawk. I thought that was very similar to tolerance. It benefits everyone, so long as they are also tolerant but gets easily destroyed by intolerance. I don’t care too much about the comparison itself, but most social exchanges can be better understood though game theory.
An Italian left-wing comic author once said that neo-fascism has been normalized so much that Nazi is the only term left, but perhaps that applies only to his country.
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).
But the right’s problems are things like “black people exist” or “trans people exist”, or really just a bunch of variants of that for different people they hate. The Nazi comparison isn’t invalid, and there’s absolutely no reason for the left to entertain their problems as legitimate.
No it’s not. I mean for example people who live next to a refugee home and asked for help to deal with the problems that came with it. Just really boring problems that could have been actually resolved. Like people dumping their trash on the streets, ignoring driving rules, minors stealing in corner shops, stuff like that.
In these neighbourhoods it could have been prevented that the people don’t want more refugees or even vote for AFD. But instead, when people mentioned these issues, they were called racists or Nazis. Because it was uncomfortable to talk about it and everyone wanted to seem extra tolerant.
I wonder if people still think it was worth it to ignore these complaints as petty. That behaviour has antagonized a bunch of people from the cause. Only for the short gratification of a holier than thou attitude.
I don’t think that’s “the problem.” There’s been a global resurgence of actual fascism over the last 20 years. Nationalistic, racist, xenophobic, dictatorially structured, scapegoatism, corporatist, all the boxes checked. It’s been my experience people complaining about the term being “watered down” have dipped their own toe too much in that pool, i.e., they think some elements of it are excusable, sympathize with the actual fascist figures, and hence rush to their defense.
Fascism never caught on anywhere with the public in any country because the whole population was all suddenly cartoon villains. The public got sold a belief system that was appealing to them, that made sense to them, that’s how they fell for it. They’d put in elements of truth into what they were saying, or appeal to basic grievances that the population had.
Or perhaps some people aren’t fascist when they are angry about the communication problems with refugees, for example . Perhaps they are just simple minded, a bit stupid, politically uninterested, whatever.
These people will always exist. They don’t go away when we hate them a lot. Or when we label them as fascist in some kind of Gotcha moment.
A practical solution would be to deal with their problems. Which can easily be done if you are willing to pay a bit of money for community centers etc., which could help with communication and integration tremendously.
It’s a mislead interpretation of what tolerance means that makes people wilfully blind to these issues. They will even risk having a party like the AFD growing in seats for this.
Understanding any problem is a crucial condition for solving it. That includes accurately understanding and characterizing what’s going on. The goal isn’t to name-call people sucked into a fascist movement, it’s to not bury our heads in the sand and pretend fascism isn’t making a huge comeback. That includes actually being able to explain to these people the nature and structure of a fascist movement so they can understand how they’ve been duped.
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.
The paradox of the paradox: there wouldn’t be a paradox if the philosopher wouldn’t be stuck in the logic of a limited model and a distorted assumption about growth.
Only because there exists the possibility that a movement can grow doesn’t mean that it will grow.
Intolerance is also not real, like the war on hunger. There is no enemy, but instead there are people to feed.
This leads all to a simple answer that hides that ‘let’ s give them a chance’ was driven by intolerance for socialists and communists, which should ring a bell.
People are so proud that they are allowed to hate the right enemy that they don’t ask what those humans actually need to become friends. (Which doesn’t mean apeacement!)
*edit: could the downvoters please leave a note and state where they disagree, please?
Actually, I think it’s that a lot of people are aware of the Paradox of Tolerance as a fairly well-discuss philosophical point, and overhumanizing a group defined by its desire to extinguish an ethnicity is not the most constructive rebuttal to it.
It’s not even Godwinizing. Karl Popper coined the Paradox of Tolerance in full knowledge of Nazi atrocities.
I didn’t downvote him, but I’m thinking that’s why many people did.
If anything, the model of a paradox is too mind-boggling for people to grasp it intuitively. A simpler model for it is that of a peace treaty, or of a social contract. Picture this: a contract whereby we agree to uphold rights and protections for everyone, in exchange for receiving the rights and protections thereby upheld.
Tolerance by itself is too easily conflated with having no standards whatsoever, (eh? Nazis? I guess we have to tolerate them if tolerance is the rule of the day, right?) but when it’s a question of enforcing the terms of the contract, it becomes quickly clear that when they start working to break the contract they’re no longer covered by it.
It’s not a paradox when you’re enforcing a contract or a treaty. The protections of a treaty extend only to those abiding by its terms. When the outlaws rode into town to do their outlaw thing, were they entitled to the protections of the laws? No, that’s what the word outlaw means.
Of course, this framing-in-neutral-sounding-language suffers from the problem whereby in cases of oppression, neutrality aligns with the oppressor. Who gets to say what the contract is, and who enforces it? Should the organs of law and justice fall into the hands of people bent on oppressing others, that’s when this neutral-sounding-framing can be used as a tool of oppression. That’s how Jim Crow worked, it’s how white supremacy works, it’s how every colonial/settler nation functions.
There is one group of people intent on using the language of tolerance as a tool of oppression, and it’s high time there was a clause in the paradox/contract/treaty that explicitly calls out that fascists aren’t covered because their whole program is to subvert the contract such that they have rights and power but others do not.
You’re just doing the “all language is nihilism” thing.
Really, the logical issue is that the comic is taking a descriptive premise (tolerance of intolerance can, or perhaps is likely to beget intolerance) and forming an unqualified prescriptive message from it.
The reality of the matter is that all philosophy is local. Obviously descriptive ethics define prescriptive ethics, but rarely at a universal scale. “Tolerance can be dangerous,” “radical tolerance can be dangerous,” and “asbestos tolerance can be dangerous,” all express very different propositions. The better you can qualify the danger, and the more you can constrain the object, the better you can act on the statement.
You can argue that here, the comic does qualify its “bar” for intolerance with the nazi example. The semantic way of reading this is that the author is defending intolerance of Nazis, or some related abstraction. I therefore don’t think it is semantically correct to say that the author seeks to apply this ethos broadly.
they don’t ask what those humans actually need to become friends.
The thing is, the answer to this question may be “nothing”. Plenty of people with a lot of money and plentiful food are unrepentant bigots. Musk is unimaginably rich and still a transphobe. The rumor is that it’s because Grimes started dating someone trans after breaking it off with him.
What would we need to give him for him to spread his wealth around and become an advocate for trans rights?
Your ideal is admirable. And certainly, we should offer redemption and encourage people to change. But that should not come at the expense of the wronged nor vulnerable.
I sometimes make fun of reactionaries by saying “Anti-Racists are intolerant of Racists. They’re the true racists!”. Didn’t know there was a point to be made in that joke!
Fully agree. The only catch with this is it can be distorted with propaganda to point to anyone as being intolerant, with enough saturation. The bar for recognizing intolerance needs to be fairly high.
Why?
We don’t want to risk further radicalizing those still within reach and not completely indoctrinated.
We don’t want to risk a false accusation and provoke witch-hunts.
We don’t want the intolerant to use this against the tolerant.
It’s why I’m always a bit leery of the knee-jerk punch-a-nazi movements.
I’ve personally witnessed my little brother express hating the left more than Nazis after he was banned from a video game for calling someone a retard.
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship
The comment you responded to was an observation not an argument.
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
I’m sorry man but I really don’t have the patiences to write a thesis about this especially since I don’t think what I wrote is deep, or complicated to understand. There are literally people responding to my initial comment justifying censoring religion. You can also search Lemmy for “paradox of tolerance” and you will find countless examples of what I’m talking about if you are genuinely interested.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad. Censorship against speech regarding the government should be protected. However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas, and many countries censor hate speech. We censor people’s ability to physically and emotionally harm others. We censor threats. Censorship isn’t inherently bad, and is already used functionally everywhere, just ask ChatGPT.
I do however think censorship can be dangerous. I think the censorship we see in public forums (including lemmy) already treads on the toes of legitimate intellectual conversation of objective views on hate speech and offensive language. Tone policing is incredibly intellectually disingenuous, but is widespread because feelings trump literacy. I think the censorship of individual words is supremely dangerous because it also bans or limits the conversation around those words, their usage, etymology, and understanding their use. Comprehension of offensive things is just as valuable as understanding anything else, if not more so should you wish to fight them, but censorship of offensive things without context destroys the capacity for understanding to permeate the social consciousness.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad, and I especially hate the idea that people think they have the authority to restrict what others learn about.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad
Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
There’s a reason I clarified that censorship of words and concepts for education is dangerous, censoring people using those concepts to cause harm is not.
Dude… If you don’t understand that my comment is responding to your post in its entirety, that ain’t my problem.
Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
Even people I find abhorrent have rights. That’s kind of how it works. Like your opinion is drastically harmful to my way of life, and I think people like yourself have a misguided concept of what’s actually in your control, but I support your right to express yourself.
Also there’s a paradox in your thinking. You said speech against governments should be protected. So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action. Do we not now have a right to talk about X due to the fact that it’s being censored by a governing force? If not how do you rectify that against your belief speech against governments should be protected.
Nope, in your system the government has banned Nazism which means nazis are now able to oppose that action, and promote their beliefs in opposition of the government.
You really are thick.
Dude you’re smart enough to see the holes in your position, I’m not the one being thick here, but you do you.
Nope, in your system the government has banned Nazism which means nazis are now able to oppose that action, and promote their beliefs in opposition of the government.
However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas,
What is an isn’t a harmful idea changes drastically between generations. This would have been used to censor information about homosexuality before 1995 or so. “Harmful” as modernly defined is a subjective standard.
Not one that remains objective over time. In 1820 Atheism, and Homosexuality would be considered harmful; in 1920 Racial equality would have been considered harmful, as would Unionization. Imagine the things we consider harmful today that our descendants in 2120 will consider us barbaric for.
I disagree. He asked a question that gets to the heart of the question, given that the definition of what is “harmful” has changed over the years and will continue to change into the future; does OP support the censorship of the things it would have censored and the things it may censor in the future? It’s a valid question and it core to the disagreement.
If OP doesn’t care about the dangers of censorship that’s fine, but they shouldn’t act like you can allow censorship without the problems it has historically and will in the future cause.
The disagreement is that censorship can be good at all. Censorship, even with the best of intentions has always been a net negative for a society. And there’s no standard for censorship that can withstand simple historical analysis rigor. Censorship is always a powerful group limiting the speech of the populace.
Sodomy was once considered harm. Masturbation was once deemed to be “self abuse”. Some people consider vaccination and masks to be harmful. Judaism was seen as harmful by interwar Germans.
The dictionary defines the word; it does not determine whether a particular act can be described by that word. Harm is subjective, and changes.
Yes, congratulations, you figured out what the other poster didn’t. Shame you think you’re disagreeing with me, but I’ll take your unintended agreeance even if you don’t have the comprehension to understand why. Nuance, only for the literate.
However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas
Your acknowledgement that “Judaism” was once considered a “harmful idea” would seem to suggest you believe it is "perfectly legitimate to censor Judaism.
I’d consider all religion to be built on a number of harmful ideas as they are figments of peoples imagination rather than objective reality and have been used for subjugation and control.
And I’d argue that it is legitimate to censor those.
You act like context and nuance are nothing more than thought experiments.
lmao 🤣 it’s gold that Lemmy saves the source of deleted comments. You really let your ego show there 🤣🤣🤣
And you are oppressive, 100%. You would oppress the religious rights of billions of people if only you could. How you would impose this without mass death? How would you be different from Nazis?
That’s why we need big brains like you to tell us what to think!! Ohhh if only I wasn’t but a lowly peon I might possibly be able to grasp that religious oppression isn’t. Yes yes.
Funny how you deflect to calling people stupid rather then admit to the glaring holes in your position, sorry that’s not the right word. Sad, it’s sad not funny.
Anyways it’s been fun measuring dicks, but I got you beat, and it looks like you don’t have a response.
I’m not telling religious people how to think. Anyone can think how they like. It’s how they express themselves that’s the issue, but you knew that, right?
I just wanna point something out. You realize you are the oppressor right? Its not people having open discussions causing genocide, it’s people like yourself that think you have the right to oppose yourself over others. How do you expect to enforce these positions?
You are developing a philosophical model for people to adopt. That model calls for the censoring of things that people seem to be “harmful”.
At times in our history, certain people have, indeed, considered homosexuality to be “harmful”.
If these people follow the philosophy you describe, these people should censor homosexuality. Is that your intent? Or is there a slight flaw in the philosophical model you have described?
In regards to homosexuality being considered harmful, there’s a big difference between people’s considerations and objective fact, that nuance is important.
Harm to oneself born of one’s own intolerance is no ones issue but their own.
Ok. I have re-read your definition again. I can work with this.
A group of people have observed a behavior that I may or may not have mentioned. This group of people has determined this behavior to be harmful. Should they censor it, or not? After you provide me with a definitive yes/no answer, I will tell you what that behavior was.
I don’t know why you keep calling this “nuance”; it is not nuance. You are using that word incorrectly.
I’m going to risk assuming that your silence is due to the understanding that my logic is solid and that both functional and self inflicted harm born of bigotry are logically determinable with adequate contextual nuance.
If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.
If you want to stop being disingenuous we can continue our discussion, but I assume your response is born of belligerence. I wish you the best of luck.
If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.
I reject the premise of your question that harm can possibly be “objective”, so my answer would be “no. The harm is subjective”. Applying your model, “subjective” harm does not qualify for censorship, but again, I reject your premise that harm can ever be considered objective fact. Your model thus suggests that nothing should be censored, but you have indicated that Judaism is one objectively harmful issue that should be censored.
So, I want to know what “objective” harm you believe Judaism causes.
You didn’t answer the questions. Two questions, two answers.
If you want to keep being intellectually disingenuous and dodging like you play dodgeball, I’ll just accept you can’t without accepting that I was able to determine you were making a disingenuous attempt to make me say something that could be construed as ‘censoring all religion’.
But my logic is solid and the questions remain posed. You showed your hand that the answer was Nazi’s referring to Judaism so I’ll finish the job for you.
Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?
The projection of a feeling.
Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?
Yes.
Therefore their harm is self inflicted through bigotry. And you agree with me.
I have not accepted any claim that harm can ever be considered objective. We are not at all in agreement, but we have narrowed down the point of contention.
Even certain behaviors that out modern society does call for censorship of - such as calling for violence to a person or group - are not “objectively” harmful, but subject to public opinion. Death threats would generally be considered worthy of censorship, but death threats to Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11 didn’t seem harmful. Are death threats and objective harm to be censored, or are they subjective, as I have just demonstrated?
So again, I would like some examples of what you mean by “objective” harm, because I currently cannot conceive of any behavior that could be unequivocally, objectively harmful.
I can’t imagine what it must be like to feel so in contention with someone who has all the right answers when you ask the right questions. I feel sorry for you.
If you’d like to reform your diatribe into concise and cohesive questions I’ll gladly continue to answer them.
It’s funny, kind of meta, you have this preconceived notion that I’m some bigoted racist born of the harm you feel when you attempt to interpret what I’m saying.
You’re self harming with your own preconceived notions that aren’t congruent with reality just like the Nazis in our discussed example.
Please provide an example of “objective harm”. You referenced this concept. You have clearly demonstrated that this concept is essential to understanding the model you have described, but I do not understand what you mean by that statement. Please provide an example to aid my comprehension.
Yes, I understand the scenario, but the context of intent changes everything.
Let’s agree that it’s all “physical violence” as defined as: they are both physically damaging each other and causing harm.
But depending on the context of intent that “physical violence” breaks down into two more nuanced types of physical violence: Defensive Violence and Offensive Violence.
Defensive Violence can be logically justified, Offensive Violence cannot.
Edit: If I had answered your question as to what is an objective harmful act, I could have been more specific and clarified Offensive Violence.
Generally speaking, I would agree on your characterization of violence.
However, I am required to suspend my own feelings and opinions on these scenarios. I realized that I cannot actually answer your last question. I can objectively state that both the Nazi and the Jew were injured, but I am forbidden from saying whether either injury constitutes “harm”.
I think I can state that the shooter-Nazi believes his force is defensive, while the injured Jew believes that force was offensive.
I think I can state that the shooter-Jew believes his force is defensive, while the injured Nazi believes that same force was offensive.
Correct, which is why the individual opinion has no bearing on whether something is objective, anything experienced by the individual is purely subjective, it is only with the agreeance of an outside impartial observer that anything can be determined as “real”.
So in the given example neither of their opinions are real without external context. We know from history that that context includes Jew’s trying to survive (defensive violence) and Nazi’s trying to kill them (offensive violence) and thus with this external impartial context we can determine that the morality of harm lies in favour of the Jew’s and that the Nazi’s are objectively morally incorrect.
Now for the mud. That can only be said of the cohesive group identities and their aligned moralities. To make the same determination for each individual person you need to understand their individual context.
The social consciousness understands, as you do, violence bad. But they lack the context and nuanced understanding that comes with asking more specific and just as important questions, which is something that you might have been able to pick up here.
Edit: Almost forgot the core point, going back to the original discussion, I think we can now agree that the morality of violence can be objectively determined with adequate context and removed from the opinions of the perpetrators. As such I believe we can most definitely devise a determinate system for the censorship of harm.
Correct, which is why the individual opinion has no bearing on whether something is objective, anything expirenced by the individual is purely subjective, it is only with the agreeance of an outside impartial observer that anything can be determined as “real”.
I think you just argued that “objective harm” cannot be “real”, as it’s “realness” is subject to the opinion of an outside impartial observer. I don’t think “impartiality” implies “objectivity”.
thus with this external impartial context
While I share your opinion that the context of the holocaust should be considered in these scenarios, I believe that we are both expressly prohibited from inserting our opinions on any issue that would affect the “objective” nature of the harm. I do not believe we can “impartially” impose this external context. I believe that when we try, we cannot consider the harm to be “objective”, but subject to our reasoning and opinion on relying on that context.
I think we run into a similar problem evaluating individual context: the initial harm becomes subject to our opinions rather than objective fact.
No, impartiality is the removal of the emotional response and personal bias, you practiced impartiality earlier, and it is key to objectivity.
Objective harm can only exist if an impartial outside observer determines that you are being harmed, this idea is the core of the legal system, which I think is also a good analogy for where I’m losing you. The legal system deals purely in ‘objective truth’; what can be proven, is, and the limitation of this system is that available evidence is not always aligned with ‘universal truth’.
I think that the point where I’m losing you is that you don’t believe we can develop enough of a nuanced understanding to make the determinations necessary to align the two, and for some things you are most certainly correct, that’s called the grey area, the indeterminable, the land of fuzzy logic and educated best guesstimates.
But that ignores all the things we can objectively determine to be censor worthy; harm that people engage in regularly.
This comes back to why I said bigotry is self harm. A bigot is not harmed by an outside source, not harmed by anyone other than their own perceptions. A bigot still feels hate and anguish and suffering due to incorrect perceptions that are backed up by the consensus of other bigots, but are not backed up by objective reality.
Societies tolerance of bigots starts and ends at their own actions. Wanting to harm co-operation is objectively harming the constructual foundation of society, and harmful to the disenfranchised, and objectively morally incorrect and can be censored should enough of society wish to. But that begins a separate discussion on social consciousness and social obligations and their related morality.
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.
Well put, but even so, the social contract is still amenable to social changes at different times. Social values change over time and so does the social contract. One day people are more liberal, the next conservative, far left or far right. What was accepted before by society becomes forbidden. What was forbidden is now accepted. That’s why I think free speech is a never ending discussion and debate.
I’m not saying that Popper’s paradox has no merit and I am not in favour of stifling free speech due to possibility of intolerance, but there is a fine line with exercising free speech and harming others through hate speech. That’s why the debate on free speech must continue and that’s the best we could do as society without stifling the right to free speech and dehumanising and harming others.
I dont know who you are, and I’m not going to make any assumptions.
but I will tell you.
You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments. a certain group that wants to use tolerance against the tolerant and constantly try to debate for no other reason to get the goal posts shifted and their hatred and bigotry accepted as normal discourse.
You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments
Is there?
It it possible you just assume that anyone who makes such an argument must be a member of that group?
That’s the thing, who defines hate speech? Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed. Now, depending on the country, being a critic of religions is a non-issue. But even doing so still is a grey area because criticising ideas is occasionally mixed with bigotry to the individual or group itself.
Criticising government policies, exposing government corruption, could be charged as treason in many cases throughout history and even to this day. But many critics could either be recognised, demonised or ignored, depending on whether the population care enough about politics or not. Some population care enough and protests, some don’t because they are politically apathetic.
That’s why the debate on free speech is never ending. It is always a case by case basis. And I think we should be comfortable with straddling the line.
tolerance does not equal free speech, laws or societal norms.
Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed.
would you say this was a tolerant society? do you think if people tolerated this behavior it would no longer be acceptable?
you’re free to say what you want but that doesn’t mean the statement is tolerant or intolerant, it depends on if you’re infringing on someone else’s right to existence.
Tolerance and free speech are intrinsically linked. Historically, free speech has been based on the value of tolerance. But as time went on, because of recent history, maximum tolerance of free speech has led to hate speech and thus we know there is limit to it.
Social mores are ever changing is what I’m saying. You mentioned that free speech is based on social contract, which is based on the underlying social mores and values. To us, what the past valued is not tolerant but for them it is. They think criticising religion is for the good of society, especially that religion has been the cornerstone of social order for many cultures for generations. But as time progressed, we learned better that religions are basically made up and is abused by those in power. And even within just fifteen to twenty years ago, we did not tolerate lgbt because that’s what society has just taught us. We did not question the prejudice against lgbt until recent years, because there is implicit consequence that going against the social norms would destabilise perceived order.
That being said, tolerance and free speech are ever evolving with time, influenced by many factors, for better or for worse. The middle ground in my opinion is to continue debating. I was an absolutist on free speech until I learned what it leads to. But at the same time, restricting free speech and tolerance in general could lead to slippery slope with unpredictable consequence because it could be applied to just about anything. Who defines what is tolerable or hate speech? We know that governments and societies around the world impose certain restrictions based on arbitrary yet vague ideas whether legal or moral.
Merriam-Webster: Tolerance - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
you’re trying to change the definition of the word to justify intolerance based on societal norms. by your logic would you consider the Talibans oppression of women tolerant because the powers in charge say it’s the societal standard?
It’s a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all. What was acceptable isn’t anymore and vice versa. What is being debated is always a case by case basis. It’s not hard to grasp. Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea. Restricting women’s rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate. But criticising a government policy or religion. What exactly are being talked about in the first? What is being railed against the government and religion? Define what is to be discussed first instead of going on abstract and then we can get back to discussion.
It’s a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all
which is why tolerance isn’t relative to social mores. lookup the word in a dictionary, you’re fundamentally not understanding the concept.
Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea.
why do you keep grouping these concepts together? you can have intolerant free speech, thats why westboro are allowed to protest at funerals. the point is you don’t have to tolerate that speech or platform it to a wider audience. In order to be a tolerant society the majority of society must denounce the intolerance.
Restricting women’s rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate
so we have established that societies can be intolerant. just because a society says something is acceptable does not make it a tolerant society which is what this paradox applies to.
I am not looking for dictionary definition. What I am asking is who or what defines what is considered intolerant? Many ideas were considered intolerant before but become accepted and vice versa.
Offensive vs Defensive. Think in terms of physical violence. Attacking someone else without legitimate provocation is offensive, ergo intolerant. Attacking someone who is attacking you is defensive, thus remains tolerant.
Pick any scenario and you can fit it into that construct with adequate context and nuance, there’s two sides to every coin, you just need to look close enough to see which side is up.
Interwar Germany considered Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and various others to not be “part of the social contract”.
Reading your comment with that idea in mind: It is “not paradoxical” to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract. “Being violently intolerant against them” is nothing but acting in the defense of self, defense of German people, and the good of German society.
The truly terrifying part is the inevitable rebuttal. It’s always been some variation of “Yeah, but my cause is righteous!”, as though the Germans thought themselves to be evil in 1923.
The paradox is that Popper cribbed his philosophy from Mein Kampf, and nobody seems to realize it. Popper’s paradox should be seen as a lesson on the insidiousness of fascism.
They were pretty tolerant of Aryans and other who accepted the “social contract”. It was only those who “refused the social contract” that they really had a problem with. But we’ve decided that it’s OK to be intolerant toward those who refuse the contract.
Is that how you see it? They “paraphrased” my own statement?
The foundation of my argument is that Interwar German people believed Jews to be enemies of their society. I don’t think that is a controversial claim.
What happens when those interwar German people adopt the philosophy described in the parent comment? What happens when they operate against their enemies in exactly the way that the parent commenter suggested?
Let’s try another tack: there are people today who believe homosexuality is an intolerant act against the social contract. There are people today who believe trans people are intolerant of the social contract. We would both likely call them bigots. Should we support these people calling for intolerance of the people they deem intolerant of their cis/hetero lifestyles?
I think you misunderstand the original post. Being tolerant and inclusive ist not a contract you can be for or against, it is the contract you act for or against.
If I act against the contract by being intolerant of others i will be excluded. In your example a homosexual person by being homosexual is not acting against the contract. He/she by being homosexual does not exclude other people from society. If I say: “They have no place in society!”, I am the intolerant one and should be excluded from the contract.
I would argue that they can and do frame their arguments in such a way as to qualify themselves as victims of gay/trans intolerance. The most obvious would be any criticism of “cancel culture”. An argument that gay/trans supporters are “canceling” people for minor, not-intolerant slights would justify their counter-intolerance under the paradox, and set up the conditions I outlined.
I would say that your argument is overly technical.
Adam and Bob are both homophobes. Adam argues gay people shouldn’t exist, and then argues that’s gay people want to cancel him. Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him, and then argues that gay people should not exist. With the technical interpretation you have presented, I would have to conclude that Adam has violated the social contract. He has indicated intolerance against gay people first, justifying the counter-intolerance against him. Bob, however, claims to be intolerated by gay people, which then justifies his counter-intolerance of gay people.
I consider Adam and Bob to be functionally identical. I think a valid philosophical model would evaluate them equally. I consider the technicality you describe to be an insignificant error in logic rather than the fundamental operating principle of the paradox.
What you are talking about is more consistent with the “Non-Aggression Principle” than Popper’s Paradox.
Its not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract.
If Adam is cancelled for being a homophobe, it is within this contract. My question is: Why was Bob cancelled? Has he done or said something? Has he agreed with Adam? Or was there only gossip about his opinion? The reasons for cancelling someone are important. As is causality. Adam and Bob are not functionally identical. Why is Adam a homophobe? Why was Bob cancelled? Maybe the started at the same spot, but here that is not clear.
Another point:
Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him.
He argues they want to cancel him. How does he know that? What are his arguments, was there a thrat? This reads like an unbacked claim, an accusation. If that’s the case, then Bob would be in the wrong for false accusation.
I set up a scenario with two identical people, differing only in the order in which two independent ideas popped into their head. In every other aspect, they are identical. Any question you decide to ask about Bob, the answer is the same for Adam. Any question about Adam, the answer is the same for Bob.
What you are talking about is valid and important. I readily concede that causality plays an important role in all manner of philosophical discussion.
However, I am trying to get you to understand that these issues are not the only important factors present in this paradox. Indeed, the arguments you presented indicating both Adam and Bob are at fault arises not from the causality chain of intolerance begetting intolerance, but from the context that both are homophobes.
To understand my concern, you need to consider the idea of simultaneity: that both sides sincerely and legitimately believe themselves to have been intolerated by the other, and both sincerely and legitimately believe they are thus justified in canceling the other.
We need to move on to Charlie and David. Both are performing intolerant acts against the other. Both believe the other was the first to act, and both believe themselves to be the victim of the other’s intolerance. The paradox has no problem with counter-intolerance. Both believe their own acts justified, and the other’s to be unjust.
To David, Charlie’s acts of intolerance are fascist. To Charlie, David’s acts of intolerance are fascist.
Where the causal chain is disputed (And it is always disputed), Popper’s Paradox effectively argues that war is better than peace. I do not subscribe to that philosophy.
Exactly, it’s only really a paradox of you try to define “tolerance” as a completely unqualified imperative. Tolerance of what?
Semantically speaking, “Are you in favor of tolerance?” Does not express a proposition, while “Do you tolerate everything?” without additional qualification is descriptively negative. No paradox at all.
Add comment