15 ms·

Not tolerating the intolerant makes you an intolerant too.

by marindez 9y ago

devdas 9y ago
Tolerance isn't a moral viewpoint, it's a peace treaty.
- golemotron 9y ago
  The underlying morality is respect for people regardless of their views.
  - devdas 9y ago
    The point of calling it a treaty is to be able to reject those who violate it.
davidgerard 9y ago
It turns out there's a considerable body of prior work on this specific issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- stale2002 9y ago
  And that work is mostly false. The US has extremely strong protections for "intolerant" and "unpopular" beliefs. And it works out fine for us. Freedom of speech, and tolerating everyone, including the intolerant, has worked out pretty well for us.
  - davidgerard 9y ago
    Good to know we've got someone really knowledgeable about philosophy like Hacker News user stale2002 to set those n00bs Popper and Rawls right on their foolish notion that this might in some way be a nuanced question.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > has worked out pretty well for us. I'm not sure how anyone can look at the fucking mess the US is currently in and say that.
    - throwawayknecht 9y ago
      Even in the US the current conception of "free speech" - both culturally and legally - only goes back to 1964.
castis 9y ago
You misunderstand the spirit of the paradox. A society that is tolerant without limit is eventually overrun by the intolerance it seeks to live side by side with.
- mejin 9y ago
  How about a society that has a law embedded into their Constitution stating that free speech is a right no matter who the president is?
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      You are right, it doesn't say that. It does imply it, at least in my opinion. See, free expression should be a social ideal. Free speech should be something we strive to allow, even to facilitate. And yes, yes that includes speech from hateful Nazis. Please keep in mind that Nazis would absolutely harm me, if given the chance to do so. I'm quite distinctly not white. But, the goal should be allowing even the deplorable to make use of their basic human rights. The Constitution says what the government cannot do. It should also serve as a baseline as to how we should model our society. We should facilitate free speech, freedom of and from religion, security of our papers, innocence as the assumption, etc... Well, we should if we care about fostering a society where people can enjoy their liberties. Rights shouldn't just be allowed for those we approve of. If they are not allowed for everyone, they are privileges and not rights.
    - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
      > The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback. That's just shamelessly trying to get something in through the back door when it won't fit in through the front door. "Oh, the _government_ isn't oppressing you but they'll just look the other way while businesses and vigilantes do it to you instead. nudge, nudge, wink, wink" And what will you do when the day comes that your political opponents come to power (elections haven't been that favorable to the left recently, in case you hadn't noticed) and find you've left them this nice, neat, and completely "legal" mechanism to wreck your lives?
moomin 9y ago
Nah. Read your Popper or your Rawls. Every modern moral philosopher has come to the same conclusion: intolerance of intolerance is a practical necessity to the maintenance of a tolerant society. I could give you the canonical example of why that's the case, but I'd trip the Godwin wire.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Regardless of what any philosophers have said, the meme survives because it's ambiguous. What does "not tolerating" mean? It could be anything from quiet disapproval to all-out war. The target is ambiguous as well. Instead of debating this slippery slogan, better to ask people to clarify what they want to do.
- vim_wannabe 9y ago
  The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost. Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'.
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    > The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost. > Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'. "Neo-Nazi" is not anywhere close to the same category as "skeptical on mass immigration". Skeptical on mass immigration represents a reasonable political position that is commonly accepted (as shown by how many Republicans with that position as part of their platform in the US). Neo-Nazi represents a fetishism for Nazism, Fascism, and the idea that mass murder might be acceptable.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      In todays climate, everyone who is not radical left is being called a Nazi. Ben Shapiro has been called a Nazi.
pdkl95 9y ago
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
kevmo 9y ago
I can live with that.
jkelsey 9y ago
If I'm fleeing a fire in my building and I run across the street to get away from it, am I jaywalking? Does that make me not respect that law? You're attempting to rationalize intolerance on a linguistic loophole (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). I know that cartoons for late-adolescents have popularized this in mass media over the past decade (ahem, South Park), but it's still childish and distracts from the legitimate concerns over the free expression of ideas in our society and world. Yeah, sure, you have a right to engage in the expression of childish thoughts, but you should be aware you're not as clever as you think you are.
AgentME 9y ago
Whoops, I guess word games have proven that it's wrong to speak out against Nazis. /s Personally I like this page's description of the word tolerance, which solves this word game: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
jack9 9y ago
Grouping tolerance with tolerance of speech muddies the issue of free speech.

Not tolerating the intolerant makes you an intolerant too.

devdas 9y ago

Tolerance isn't a moral viewpoint, it's a peace treaty.

golemotron 9y ago
The underlying morality is respect for people regardless of their views.
- devdas 9y ago
  The point of calling it a treaty is to be able to reject those who violate it.

davidgerard 9y ago

It turns out there's a considerable body of prior work on this specific issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

stale2002 9y ago
And that work is mostly false. The US has extremely strong protections for "intolerant" and "unpopular" beliefs. And it works out fine for us. Freedom of speech, and tolerating everyone, including the intolerant, has worked out pretty well for us.
- davidgerard 9y ago
  Good to know we've got someone really knowledgeable about philosophy like Hacker News user stale2002 to set those n00bs Popper and Rawls right on their foolish notion that this might in some way be a nuanced question.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > has worked out pretty well for us. I'm not sure how anyone can look at the fucking mess the US is currently in and say that.
  - throwawayknecht 9y ago
    Even in the US the current conception of "free speech" - both culturally and legally - only goes back to 1964.

castis 9y ago

You misunderstand the spirit of the paradox. A society that is tolerant without limit is eventually overrun by the intolerance it seeks to live side by side with.

mejin 9y ago
How about a society that has a law embedded into their Constitution stating that free speech is a right no matter who the president is?
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You are right, it doesn't say that. It does imply it, at least in my opinion. See, free expression should be a social ideal. Free speech should be something we strive to allow, even to facilitate. And yes, yes that includes speech from hateful Nazis. Please keep in mind that Nazis would absolutely harm me, if given the chance to do so. I'm quite distinctly not white. But, the goal should be allowing even the deplorable to make use of their basic human rights. The Constitution says what the government cannot do. It should also serve as a baseline as to how we should model our society. We should facilitate free speech, freedom of and from religion, security of our papers, innocence as the assumption, etc... Well, we should if we care about fostering a society where people can enjoy their liberties. Rights shouldn't just be allowed for those we approve of. If they are not allowed for everyone, they are privileges and not rights.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution says the government cannot make laws that prohibit free speech. It doesn't say that members of civil society must tolerate any and all speech without consequence or pushback. That's just shamelessly trying to get something in through the back door when it won't fit in through the front door. "Oh, the _government_ isn't oppressing you but they'll just look the other way while businesses and vigilantes do it to you instead. nudge, nudge, wink, wink" And what will you do when the day comes that your political opponents come to power (elections haven't been that favorable to the left recently, in case you hadn't noticed) and find you've left them this nice, neat, and completely "legal" mechanism to wreck your lives?

moomin 9y ago

Nah. Read your Popper or your Rawls. Every modern moral philosopher has come to the same conclusion: intolerance of intolerance is a practical necessity to the maintenance of a tolerant society. I could give you the canonical example of why that's the case, but I'd trip the Godwin wire.

skybrian 9y ago
Regardless of what any philosophers have said, the meme survives because it's ambiguous. What does "not tolerating" mean? It could be anything from quiet disapproval to all-out war. The target is ambiguous as well. Instead of debating this slippery slogan, better to ask people to clarify what they want to do.
vim_wannabe 9y ago
The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost. Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'.
- AFNobody 9y ago
  > The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost. > Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'. "Neo-Nazi" is not anywhere close to the same category as "skeptical on mass immigration". Skeptical on mass immigration represents a reasonable political position that is commonly accepted (as shown by how many Republicans with that position as part of their platform in the US). Neo-Nazi represents a fetishism for Nazism, Fascism, and the idea that mass murder might be acceptable.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    In todays climate, everyone who is not radical left is being called a Nazi. Ben Shapiro has been called a Nazi.

pdkl95 9y ago

https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

kevmo 9y ago

I can live with that.

jkelsey 9y ago

If I'm fleeing a fire in my building and I run across the street to get away from it, am I jaywalking? Does that make me not respect that law? You're attempting to rationalize intolerance on a linguistic loophole (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). I know that cartoons for late-adolescents have popularized this in mass media over the past decade (ahem, South Park), but it's still childish and distracts from the legitimate concerns over the free expression of ideas in our society and world. Yeah, sure, you have a right to engage in the expression of childish thoughts, but you should be aware you're not as clever as you think you are.

AgentME 9y ago

Whoops, I guess word games have proven that it's wrong to speak out against Nazis. /s Personally I like this page's description of the word tolerance, which solves this word game: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

jack9 9y ago

Grouping tolerance with tolerance of speech muddies the issue of free speech.