8 ms·
Paradox of Tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > The paradox of tolerance was des
by tchalla 9y ago
Paradox of Tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
- aje403 9y agoAristotle wrote that all matter is composed of 5 elements Popper wrote that society must be intolerant of intolerance http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/purdue-online-writing-lab-bans-use-of-the-word-man/article/2649824 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/purdue-online-writing-lab-...
- andybak 9y agoSorry?
- aje403 9y agoIt's silly, shouldn't be considered the correct viewpoint, but a great soundbite and a nice principle from a very intelligent man. Waters down life. Interolance gets vetted out with prosperity but it's not necessarily the requirement to achieving it as history has shown. I'm not sure how to respond to the bit claiming that societies are destroyed by intolerance - did Popper own any history books? Is China doomed to fail today? I wasn't expecting any up votes, but please tolerate my viewpoints!
- icebraining 9y agoplease tolerate my viewpoints! How could we? You presented none in your original post. Interolance gets vetted out with prosperity but it's not necessarily the requirement to achieving it as history has shown (...) the bit claiming that societies are destroyed by intolerance I don't see where Popper said anything about prosperity or destruction of society as a whole.
- raverbashing 9y agoWhile Popper's description of it is popular, it seems Godel realized this as well (as per the article) - while this was after Popper's (1945) I'm not sure Gödel knew about it According to Wikipedia: "On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship"
- rothrock 9y agoGödel also believed his refrigerator was emitting poison gas.
- jamiepenney 9y agoBack then, wouldn't it have been? I think they used ammonia as a coolant initially.
- TomMarius 9y agoFreon, from Wikipedia: > They are stable, nonflammable, moderately toxic gases or liquids which have typically been used as refrigerants and as aerosol propellants. Edit: why am I getting downvoted for this...?
- intopieces 9y agoBesides having the word tolerance in both, I don’t see how this comment relates to the article. In Taleb’s article, he describes how the market accommodates the minority intolerance to the extent that is most economical — that is, where the “majority” doesn’t care either way. In this way, the ability of the tolerant to be tolerant is not being seized or destroyed, because the tolerant are not actually “tolerating” anything, since that word implies a level of discomfort that the customers are not experiencing.
- tptacek 9y agoAre you sure that's what he's saying? It's a Taleb piece so I can't blame anyone for not knowing just what the fuck it is he's on about this time, but he concludes a section with the sentence "The West is currently in the process of committing suicide." I think Taleb wants it both ways, or every possible way, in this discursive essay. If you find yourself nodding along to the idea that we can get along just fine with people who have restrictive preferences so long as those preferences are compatible with our own, Taleb is happy to have you land there. But if you go into a piece that discussed Islam hoping to find the bit about how our tolerance of religion is destroying Western Civ, he's got you covered too. I want to say that I find it ironic that he zeroes in on Halal food when, as a sort of general rule, Kosher food tends to be Halal and not the other way around. But I don't know if it's ironic, because Taleb is so adept at armoring his essays against any kind of critical analysis or, for that matter, basic comprehension. Maybe the fact that Muslims are more "tolerant" of different butchering practices than Jewish people but still it's the Muslims that threaten democracy is part of his whole point. 23 skidoo!
- IntronExon 9y agoIt’s almost Taoist... he says nothing and everything, satisfying everyone and no one... at great length. Economics is perfect for him.
- conanbatt 9y ago> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. He is meaning that there should be intolerance to violent intolerance, not to any intolerance. That is my interpretation at least, and I find it very disingenuous to omit that part.
- rectang 9y agoBeing intolerant to violent intolerance is not enough. Tolerating minority disenfranchisement also leads to the death of tolerance.
- conanbatt 9y agoWhat do you call disenfranchisement?
- rectang 9y agoDenying people the right to vote. This can take many forms. Virtually the entire citizenry can be denied the right to vote, as in autocracy. Poll taxes disenfranchise the poor. The combination of felony disenfranchisement and racial disparities in enforcement of criminal laws yields a situation where racial minorities are disenfranchised as a group. Other shenanigans can limit people's choices, such as the restriction of candidates in Iran. Of course the first-past-the-post system used in the US also restricts choice in some ways... But "disenfranchisement", I'd say, specifically pertains to denying people the right to vote.
- conanbatt 9y agoAre you talking about the application of force to prevent someone from voting? Because that is violence..
- 9y ago
- mc32 9y agoSomewhat related is the phenomenon where if fir example you know you'll have vegetarians and meatatarians, you can get away with serving vegetarian food and for the most part everyone will eat. If on the other hand you serve an omnivorous meal the vegetarians will not eat.
- slimsag 9y agoThat's a bit silly. Why would a meatatarian eat anything except meat? They would be an omnivore if they did. What you're really saying is that either: a. The meatatarians are actually omnivores, and just mislabeled. b. The meatatarians are _occasionally_ omnivores, out of preference. Bending dietary preferences when there is social pressure ("they served me this food, being morally good to me personally means I should eat it" or "I'm on a diet, but everyone else is eating cake so I should too") is not all that surprising, especially if the reason you are excluding one type of food is because of _preference_. But when you exclude a certain type of food out of health needs (allergic, lactose intolerance, etc) nobody will bat an eye. If a vegetarian refuses to eat meat for their own mental / moral health, I would argue it should be treated the same.
- goldideas 9y agoMay I add that a vegetarian may refuse to eat meat for the heath of the planet as well. It takes so much water to raise animals, and they produce so much methane. This is at lease especially true in the US where we eat so much meat, and hardly any of it is wild game
- racer-v 9y agoThe problem is in 2018, everyone intolerant person claims the only thing they're intolerant of is intolerance. Conservatives complain about liberal intolerance and vice-versa. We've moved from plain level-0 intolerance to meta-intolerance.
- andybak 9y agoThis is fairly insightful. Some of it can we written off as bad-faith knowing abuses of rhetorical tactics. But the situations that don't fall into this group are more troubling as they can involve sincere and passionate advocates of civil society acting in ways that undermine that very thing.