5 ms·

> 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 ra

> 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 ago
Being intolerant to violent intolerance is not enough. Tolerating minority disenfranchisement also leads to the death of tolerance.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  What do you call disenfranchisement?
  - rectang 9y ago
    Denying 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 ago
      Are you talking about the application of force to prevent someone from voting? Because that is violence..
KirinDave 9y ago
Pretty much every intolerance worth opposing harnesses very violent elements in it's base while maintaining a veneer of civility. Look at religious motivated systemic violence against LGBT people in the US. Our current executive has waved a rainbow flag a time or two, but our vice president has personally funded things that look like camps and penned legislation that let's police ignore and LGBT person being beaten on the street. Neither of these things are particularly unfair characterizations. So yeah, you're right. It's just that intolerance naturally leads to violence rather quickly in humans.
- akkat 9y ago
  That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you give me the link to one? Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    > While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior." https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/ https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...
    - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
      From the link: Mike Pence once supported the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior." That seems like a great thing to fund. Looks like our current vice president seems interested in helping those who seek help.
      - azemetre 9y ago
        Just in case anyone is reading this comment and they think that "conversion therapy" isn't equivalent to torturing individuals I suggest the following op-ed from the NYT about a man who suffered through the process: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-th...
makomk 9y ago
Ironically, I usually see Karl Poppler's Paradox of Tolerance used to justify exactly what he's warning against.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  That's actually the logical conclusion of "no tolerance for intolerance". Actual intolerance will re-emerge while using that as a slogan. I honestly don't see any other conclusion while divisive identity politics is the culture. Every election and debate is just subtext for making sure your people are in power to protect your people.
  - rectang 9y ago
    It's a paradox. The point is that tolerance cannot be limitless. That doesn't mean that intolerance won't prevail, it just means that those who strive for tolerance need not achieve perfection. There will forever be a balance to be struck, and it's natural to have disagreements about it.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Let me rephrase. Assuming the tolerance maximizers are completely successful, the next wave of ugly intolerance will be wrapped in a veneer of "no tolerance for intolerance". I think the thing to strive for is a more perfect due process. I'm concerned people are instead looking for a more perfect way to label and shun transgressors. And they use hate and fear of intolerance as a key justification. So how do we stop that? Or, rather, why haven't we had any luck so far?
      - rectang 9y ago
        I think the only answer is one which leaves everyone unsatisfied: Some ideas will be treated as transgressions; not all transgressions will be punished.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Identity politics is all the rage now, but i do believe the libertarians found the way out of this paradox. Its the use of force and coercion that draws a clear line on what kind of intolerance is intolerable. The rest is just distasteful.

rectang 9y ago

Being intolerant to violent intolerance is not enough. Tolerating minority disenfranchisement also leads to the death of tolerance.

conanbatt 9y ago
What do you call disenfranchisement?
- rectang 9y ago
  Denying 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 ago
    Are you talking about the application of force to prevent someone from voting? Because that is violence..

KirinDave 9y ago

Pretty much every intolerance worth opposing harnesses very violent elements in it's base while maintaining a veneer of civility. Look at religious motivated systemic violence against LGBT people in the US. Our current executive has waved a rainbow flag a time or two, but our vice president has personally funded things that look like camps and penned legislation that let's police ignore and LGBT person being beaten on the street. Neither of these things are particularly unfair characterizations. So yeah, you're right. It's just that intolerance naturally leads to violence rather quickly in humans.

akkat 9y ago
That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you give me the link to one? Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?
- chillwaves 9y ago
  > While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior." https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/ https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...
  - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
    From the link: Mike Pence once supported the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior." That seems like a great thing to fund. Looks like our current vice president seems interested in helping those who seek help.
    - azemetre 9y ago
      Just in case anyone is reading this comment and they think that "conversion therapy" isn't equivalent to torturing individuals I suggest the following op-ed from the NYT about a man who suffered through the process: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-th...

makomk 9y ago

Ironically, I usually see Karl Poppler's Paradox of Tolerance used to justify exactly what he's warning against.

humanrebar 9y ago
That's actually the logical conclusion of "no tolerance for intolerance". Actual intolerance will re-emerge while using that as a slogan. I honestly don't see any other conclusion while divisive identity politics is the culture. Every election and debate is just subtext for making sure your people are in power to protect your people.
- rectang 9y ago
  It's a paradox. The point is that tolerance cannot be limitless. That doesn't mean that intolerance won't prevail, it just means that those who strive for tolerance need not achieve perfection. There will forever be a balance to be struck, and it's natural to have disagreements about it.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Let me rephrase. Assuming the tolerance maximizers are completely successful, the next wave of ugly intolerance will be wrapped in a veneer of "no tolerance for intolerance". I think the thing to strive for is a more perfect due process. I'm concerned people are instead looking for a more perfect way to label and shun transgressors. And they use hate and fear of intolerance as a key justification. So how do we stop that? Or, rather, why haven't we had any luck so far?
    - rectang 9y ago
      I think the only answer is one which leaves everyone unsatisfied: Some ideas will be treated as transgressions; not all transgressions will be punished.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Identity politics is all the rage now, but i do believe the libertarians found the way out of this paradox. Its the use of force and coercion that draws a clear line on what kind of intolerance is intolerable. The rest is just distasteful.