3 ms·

> I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, whic

> I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. That's the reason why we have free speech rights ( in america at least ). So that people can't use and exploit the "gray" as an excuse to censor everyone. > A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. If the ideas are terrible, they should be promulgated and shown for all to see. > I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult Actually, technology makes suppression of speech easy. > But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society. Which opinions? You make generalizations and don't speak of any specifics? And who gets to decide which speech shouldn't be tolerated?

Larrikin 9y ago
Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. Treating them like they are sends you directly in the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. In which case it's a good thing Larrikin has a well defined definition of "political arguments with sound reasons" we can use in legislation. Snark aside, this post steps over and then directly back into the "who determines what's acceptable speech?" problem. Few will disagree with your extreme example, but your extreme example isn't what people are worried about. To hell with the people who actually advocate nazi ideology - I'm a lot more worried about what the overreaction to their stupidity will bring, that overreaction being a much more clear and present danger.
- int_19h 9y ago
  The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. If you tolerate hate speech, there's no paradox: you can do so, without surrendering the protection against intolerance for those members that speech targets.
  - grzm 9y ago
    > The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. While I can understand the motivation to interpret it this way, it seems directly counter to Popper: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of Popper's argument, and I dispute it. In fact, the very fuzziness of that quote you cited is a good example. What does "we can keep them in check" means? One would assume that it applies so long as adherents of that ideology don't hold any prominent political power - i.e. when they can move on from speech to actions. The rest of that quote does mesh well with my take on this: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise". (Indeed, as Popper himself notes, this is a very straightforward reformulation of the paradox of freedom, whereby you need to suppress the actions of some people that are aimed at reducing the freedom of other people - so you need to reduce freedom for some to maximize freedom for all.) Another way to approach it is via definitions. Tolerating something means putting up with it. Tolerance is generally deemed to be different from acceptance - to tolerate something means not trying to persecute it or otherwise stamp it out by violence, whereas acceptance is to acknowledge something as proper. But from there follows that intolerance is an action - merely holding some opinion, or even letting it known that you do, is not per se intolerance. "I will not tolerate X" implies that you're willing to act to prevent X from happening. If and when you do, the paradox of tolerance kicks in - people who want to maximize tolerance, have to act themselves, to restrict your acts - thereby being intolerant towards your intolerance. But if you don't act, suppressing your freedom of conscience or of expression is intolerance of dissenting opinion, not intolerance of intolerance.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. So then let them say it and make fools of themselves. I'm well of paradox of tolerance and it doesn't apply to free speech. Free speech is what keeps the nazis at bay, it's not what gives them power. It's why hitler and the nazis hated free speech and it's why they banned it.

Larrikin 9y ago

Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. Treating them like they are sends you directly in the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Karunamon 9y ago
Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. In which case it's a good thing Larrikin has a well defined definition of "political arguments with sound reasons" we can use in legislation. Snark aside, this post steps over and then directly back into the "who determines what's acceptable speech?" problem. Few will disagree with your extreme example, but your extreme example isn't what people are worried about. To hell with the people who actually advocate nazi ideology - I'm a lot more worried about what the overreaction to their stupidity will bring, that overreaction being a much more clear and present danger.
int_19h 9y ago
The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. If you tolerate hate speech, there's no paradox: you can do so, without surrendering the protection against intolerance for those members that speech targets.
- grzm 9y ago
  > The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. While I can understand the motivation to interpret it this way, it seems directly counter to Popper: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of Popper's argument, and I dispute it. In fact, the very fuzziness of that quote you cited is a good example. What does "we can keep them in check" means? One would assume that it applies so long as adherents of that ideology don't hold any prominent political power - i.e. when they can move on from speech to actions. The rest of that quote does mesh well with my take on this: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise". (Indeed, as Popper himself notes, this is a very straightforward reformulation of the paradox of freedom, whereby you need to suppress the actions of some people that are aimed at reducing the freedom of other people - so you need to reduce freedom for some to maximize freedom for all.) Another way to approach it is via definitions. Tolerating something means putting up with it. Tolerance is generally deemed to be different from acceptance - to tolerate something means not trying to persecute it or otherwise stamp it out by violence, whereas acceptance is to acknowledge something as proper. But from there follows that intolerance is an action - merely holding some opinion, or even letting it known that you do, is not per se intolerance. "I will not tolerate X" implies that you're willing to act to prevent X from happening. If and when you do, the paradox of tolerance kicks in - people who want to maximize tolerance, have to act themselves, to restrict your acts - thereby being intolerant towards your intolerance. But if you don't act, suppressing your freedom of conscience or of expression is intolerance of dissenting opinion, not intolerance of intolerance.
eighthnate 9y ago
> Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. So then let them say it and make fools of themselves. I'm well of paradox of tolerance and it doesn't apply to free speech. Free speech is what keeps the nazis at bay, it's not what gives them power. It's why hitler and the nazis hated free speech and it's why they banned it.