2 ms·

> 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 th

by 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.

by grzm 9y ago

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.