4 ms·

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with u

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part of the their group. Effectively, all tolerance will be eliminated. The only way you could prevent this from happening is if you are prepared to contain such a group one way or the other. Or allow other people to not tolerate them by using force too. Either way you void your tolerance tenet. Have to admit - it is indeed a paradox.

wallace_f 9y ago
This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population. The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.
- likeslogic 9y ago
  Not really. A little further is this - "However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2][3]"
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I looked and Rawls explicitly says he disagrees with it. What you have quoted here is saying physical safety is sincerely in danger. To me this is like him saying it's ok to eliminate terrorist groups, if that is what they truly are.
int_19h 9y ago
The problem with this paradox is that it's applied to situations that are actually different from what's describe here. Suppose even we have this group that's intolerant of everyone else. But their intolerance is expressed in speech, not actions. In other words, they're saying, "you're all our enemies, and should be destroyed", but they aren't doing anything about it. Or maybe they are, but it consists of running a political party on that platform, encouraging people to vote them in. As a society, you can absolutely tolerate them without the use of force, at least until the point where they actually get the majority of votes (but at that point, they are the society, and you're an outgroup in that society).
- likeslogic 9y ago
  What about constant verbal abuse? Or - as in this particular case - the right to bombard (or drown) any useful discussion? Should that be tolerated? I don't know. For some people this kind of online attacking and lack of freedom to communicate (through effective trolling) may be worse than physical abuse. In the end its the brain interpreting signals and outputting pain.
- mszcz 9y ago
  I have a feeling that that kind of speech, given enough time and tolerance, eventually might escalate to action.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Hate speech is a symptom of a problem, not a cause. Trying to treat a disease by suppressing symptoms is a waste of time at best, and actively harmful at first (because it conceals the progression of that disease, until one day you're violently sick).
- pixelmonkey 9y ago
  Your comment is precisely the paradox, though. "You can absolutely tolerant them until they get the majority of votes." First of all, it's not every society where a "majority of votes" grants political power. In Greece, the White Supremacist group (Golden Dawn) holds parliament seats even though they are a small (but vocal and politically active) minority. White supremacists now influence policy in Greece despite being a minority. In the Middle East, this kind of outsize influence might be even worse. I am no expert on Middle East politics, but I think it's fair to say that the most intolerant factions have striven to gain the most political power, in spite of the political leanings of the mass populations over which they rule. One issue with intolerant groups is that they tend toward violence and oppression of opposing speech. The tolerant and pacifist among us can allow them to gain enough minority power to effect a political coup, which can result in a societal coup, since having political control can grant you some degree of societal control. In such a society, espousing tolerance might carry with it the risk of violent retribution (since tolerance is viewed by the "in" group as heresy/dissent). This will cause the intolerance to spread, even if seemingly against the will of more tolerant citizens. In this way, certain ideologies can have a "toxic" societal effect. You don't need to look far in modern history to find examples. And, that's the paradox.
otakucode 9y ago
It's not a paradox at all. You made a completely unjustified leap. You presumed that the 'enemies must be destroyed' portion would somehow be carried out without resistance. That's nonsensical.

wallace_f 9y ago

This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population. The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.

likeslogic 9y ago
Not really. A little further is this - "However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2][3]"
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I looked and Rawls explicitly says he disagrees with it. What you have quoted here is saying physical safety is sincerely in danger. To me this is like him saying it's ok to eliminate terrorist groups, if that is what they truly are.

int_19h 9y ago

The problem with this paradox is that it's applied to situations that are actually different from what's describe here. Suppose even we have this group that's intolerant of everyone else. But their intolerance is expressed in speech, not actions. In other words, they're saying, "you're all our enemies, and should be destroyed", but they aren't doing anything about it. Or maybe they are, but it consists of running a political party on that platform, encouraging people to vote them in. As a society, you can absolutely tolerate them without the use of force, at least until the point where they actually get the majority of votes (but at that point, they are the society, and you're an outgroup in that society).

likeslogic 9y ago
What about constant verbal abuse? Or - as in this particular case - the right to bombard (or drown) any useful discussion? Should that be tolerated? I don't know. For some people this kind of online attacking and lack of freedom to communicate (through effective trolling) may be worse than physical abuse. In the end its the brain interpreting signals and outputting pain.
mszcz 9y ago
I have a feeling that that kind of speech, given enough time and tolerance, eventually might escalate to action.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Hate speech is a symptom of a problem, not a cause. Trying to treat a disease by suppressing symptoms is a waste of time at best, and actively harmful at first (because it conceals the progression of that disease, until one day you're violently sick).
pixelmonkey 9y ago
Your comment is precisely the paradox, though. "You can absolutely tolerant them until they get the majority of votes." First of all, it's not every society where a "majority of votes" grants political power. In Greece, the White Supremacist group (Golden Dawn) holds parliament seats even though they are a small (but vocal and politically active) minority. White supremacists now influence policy in Greece despite being a minority. In the Middle East, this kind of outsize influence might be even worse. I am no expert on Middle East politics, but I think it's fair to say that the most intolerant factions have striven to gain the most political power, in spite of the political leanings of the mass populations over which they rule. One issue with intolerant groups is that they tend toward violence and oppression of opposing speech. The tolerant and pacifist among us can allow them to gain enough minority power to effect a political coup, which can result in a societal coup, since having political control can grant you some degree of societal control. In such a society, espousing tolerance might carry with it the risk of violent retribution (since tolerance is viewed by the "in" group as heresy/dissent). This will cause the intolerance to spread, even if seemingly against the will of more tolerant citizens. In this way, certain ideologies can have a "toxic" societal effect. You don't need to look far in modern history to find examples. And, that's the paradox.

otakucode 9y ago

It's not a paradox at all. You made a completely unjustified leap. You presumed that the 'enemies must be destroyed' portion would somehow be carried out without resistance. That's nonsensical.