5 ms·

There is no paradox of tolerance if we're exclusive talking about the tolerance of speech. Even the most abhorrent words are still just words and do not inheren

There is no paradox of tolerance if we're exclusive talking about the tolerance of speech. Even the most abhorrent words are still just words and do not inherently exclude those that disagree with them. /pol/ and Gab are filled with right wing extremists, but the platforms do tolerate left wing extremists as well. The paradox of tolerance only applies when talking about actions. A group that is actively excluding others through discrimination or force may need to be removed to preserve tolerance. Speech does not exclude anyone - if the listener chooses to leave because of it then that is the listener's prerogative (as opposed to, say, being subjected to violence or discrimination).

watwut 8y ago
I think that people in these debates are less interested in whether "words" are ugly and more in political projects pushed by those words. When a guy in synagogue is shooting people, because he happen to believe that they are organizing immigrants to genocide whites, competitive left wing group trying to convince other guys does not make people in synagogue wake up from death. It does not cancel out. You can be simultanously for free speech while accept the reality that words have consequences and words are often said in order to cause those consequences. To make people afraid and dangerous and ready for violence.
- manfredo 8y ago
  The point is not that the extremism on one end cancels out extremism on the other. The point is, it is possible to tolerate both - there is no paradox of tolerance with respect to speech. As to your second point, the suppression of speech also has dangerous consequences. Plenty of anti-Semitic thought is rooted in the belief of Jewish control of the media. Suppressing speech probably only serves to reinforce this view. The reality is that intolerance of hateful speech rarely makes hate go away. Remember, high ranking Nazi leaders were imprisoned, and Völkischer Beobachter (a prominent Nazi publication) was repeatedly banned and had it's offices raided. It didn't stop the spread of Nationalist Socialism. Some historians believe this suppression only accelerated it's rise. It's like the Streisand effect on a political scale. Aside from instances where the suppression of speech is nearly certain to avoid negative consequences (like specific threats, conspiracy to commit crimes, divulging official secrets or classified information) it is not wise to suppress it. And this doesn't even touch on people attempting to use accusations of hate speech as a political tool (e.g. the "blue lives matter" laws not-so-subtly aimed at suppression of BLM).
  - watwut 8y ago
    You can tolerate both, unless you are killed or injured by someone convinced on those words. Or, less dramatically, unless your salary is lower, because words convinced them that your kind is to be treated with more suspicion. You can tolerate extremism as long as you are not the target of said extremism. When you are the target, you have no choice. The believe in Jewish control of media is reinforced by people who push for that theory. Whether there is suppression of speech or not in addition to that is not all that much relevant. Given that those very same groups are the ones that historically did suppressed a lot of speech and their fans did not minded that, I don't think the point stands. Nazi also got comparably lower sentences then radical communists or left wing for same offenses. Right wing in Germany was treated with more lenience then left wing in Germany during that period. Hitler could be sent to jail for long, till forgotten, but was not. He could be kept there and his jail could be less of holiday then it actually was. Nazi got plenty of support and benefit of doubt on all kinds of levels which along with fear of communism and wish to build a military imperium again played more role then office sacking. It is not like only Nazi were censored at the time or that specially strict rules were applied to them. More like the opposite - they were seen as patriots that went just a bit too far. Somehow, nazi openly trying to silence Jews (even before they got power) or democratic politicians did not caused Streissand effect making Jews or democrats more heard. I also remember that their opposition was targeted by Nazi strongly and successfully.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      The point in making is, the injuries you listed are the result of actions, not words. Trying to equate words with actions of a few people that act on them is a very dangerous line of thinking. It's the same logic behind people that wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country after 9/11. After all, if 11 people shot dead is sufficient to warrant suppression of speech, then surely 3 thousand does as well. And for what it's worth, many of the groups to which I belong have been and continue to be targeted by extremists. Your claim that, "When you are the target, you have no choice" is factually incorrect. And whether or not the NSDAP would have still siezed power if the crackdown had been more onerous is speculation. Perhaps it would have further incensed the party and only made it stronger.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but it bears repeating here: there is plenty of speech (such as advocacy of violence) that, if we tolerate it, has a net negative impact on speech. Put another way: why would I paint a target on my back by trying to debate people who actively advocate for my murder? I'm much more likely to shut up and stay safe.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Making credible and specific calls for violece (e.g. "actively advocating for your murder" as you put it) is punisheable by law. There does exist a mechanism to punish people actively working towards causing harm, rather than spreading ideas. Of course, many would try to claim that whole ideas should be off limits - but that's essentially a concession that they're advocating using censorship (whether through government or corporate action) to manipulate which ideas can be disseminated through societies.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    The problem is that, although plenty of speech that is not a call for violence still causes harm, many free speech zealots (and hateful people, in bad faith) refuse to recognize it as such and consider it "spreading ideas". Consider: "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" aren't credible and specific calls for violence, but if I encounter an angry group of people chanting them I'm going to feel unsafe, and I'm certainly not going to do or say anything that makes me read as Jewish. This is literally the conduct on Gab that people are defending! Unfortunately, hate speech creates a zero-sum situation: you have to choose whether to suppress the hate speech, or the people it targets. There's no way to choose both, and supporting Gab here just tells me that my speech doesn't matter. The law defines this narrowly because law must be black and white, but there's no reason we as a society can't see the (really, really, really dark) shades of gray here.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Unfortunately, hate speech creates a zero-sum situation: you have to choose whether to suppress the hate speech, or the people it targets. There's no way to choose both No, you can choose both (suppress both Nazis and Jews), just not neither.

watwut 8y ago

I think that people in these debates are less interested in whether "words" are ugly and more in political projects pushed by those words. When a guy in synagogue is shooting people, because he happen to believe that they are organizing immigrants to genocide whites, competitive left wing group trying to convince other guys does not make people in synagogue wake up from death. It does not cancel out. You can be simultanously for free speech while accept the reality that words have consequences and words are often said in order to cause those consequences. To make people afraid and dangerous and ready for violence.

manfredo 8y ago
The point is not that the extremism on one end cancels out extremism on the other. The point is, it is possible to tolerate both - there is no paradox of tolerance with respect to speech. As to your second point, the suppression of speech also has dangerous consequences. Plenty of anti-Semitic thought is rooted in the belief of Jewish control of the media. Suppressing speech probably only serves to reinforce this view. The reality is that intolerance of hateful speech rarely makes hate go away. Remember, high ranking Nazi leaders were imprisoned, and Völkischer Beobachter (a prominent Nazi publication) was repeatedly banned and had it's offices raided. It didn't stop the spread of Nationalist Socialism. Some historians believe this suppression only accelerated it's rise. It's like the Streisand effect on a political scale. Aside from instances where the suppression of speech is nearly certain to avoid negative consequences (like specific threats, conspiracy to commit crimes, divulging official secrets or classified information) it is not wise to suppress it. And this doesn't even touch on people attempting to use accusations of hate speech as a political tool (e.g. the "blue lives matter" laws not-so-subtly aimed at suppression of BLM).
- watwut 8y ago
  You can tolerate both, unless you are killed or injured by someone convinced on those words. Or, less dramatically, unless your salary is lower, because words convinced them that your kind is to be treated with more suspicion. You can tolerate extremism as long as you are not the target of said extremism. When you are the target, you have no choice. The believe in Jewish control of media is reinforced by people who push for that theory. Whether there is suppression of speech or not in addition to that is not all that much relevant. Given that those very same groups are the ones that historically did suppressed a lot of speech and their fans did not minded that, I don't think the point stands. Nazi also got comparably lower sentences then radical communists or left wing for same offenses. Right wing in Germany was treated with more lenience then left wing in Germany during that period. Hitler could be sent to jail for long, till forgotten, but was not. He could be kept there and his jail could be less of holiday then it actually was. Nazi got plenty of support and benefit of doubt on all kinds of levels which along with fear of communism and wish to build a military imperium again played more role then office sacking. It is not like only Nazi were censored at the time or that specially strict rules were applied to them. More like the opposite - they were seen as patriots that went just a bit too far. Somehow, nazi openly trying to silence Jews (even before they got power) or democratic politicians did not caused Streissand effect making Jews or democrats more heard. I also remember that their opposition was targeted by Nazi strongly and successfully.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    The point in making is, the injuries you listed are the result of actions, not words. Trying to equate words with actions of a few people that act on them is a very dangerous line of thinking. It's the same logic behind people that wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country after 9/11. After all, if 11 people shot dead is sufficient to warrant suppression of speech, then surely 3 thousand does as well. And for what it's worth, many of the groups to which I belong have been and continue to be targeted by extremists. Your claim that, "When you are the target, you have no choice" is factually incorrect. And whether or not the NSDAP would have still siezed power if the crackdown had been more onerous is speculation. Perhaps it would have further incensed the party and only made it stronger.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but it bears repeating here: there is plenty of speech (such as advocacy of violence) that, if we tolerate it, has a net negative impact on speech. Put another way: why would I paint a target on my back by trying to debate people who actively advocate for my murder? I'm much more likely to shut up and stay safe.

manfredo 8y ago
Making credible and specific calls for violece (e.g. "actively advocating for your murder" as you put it) is punisheable by law. There does exist a mechanism to punish people actively working towards causing harm, rather than spreading ideas. Of course, many would try to claim that whole ideas should be off limits - but that's essentially a concession that they're advocating using censorship (whether through government or corporate action) to manipulate which ideas can be disseminated through societies.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  The problem is that, although plenty of speech that is not a call for violence still causes harm, many free speech zealots (and hateful people, in bad faith) refuse to recognize it as such and consider it "spreading ideas". Consider: "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" aren't credible and specific calls for violence, but if I encounter an angry group of people chanting them I'm going to feel unsafe, and I'm certainly not going to do or say anything that makes me read as Jewish. This is literally the conduct on Gab that people are defending! Unfortunately, hate speech creates a zero-sum situation: you have to choose whether to suppress the hate speech, or the people it targets. There's no way to choose both, and supporting Gab here just tells me that my speech doesn't matter. The law defines this narrowly because law must be black and white, but there's no reason we as a society can't see the (really, really, really dark) shades of gray here.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Unfortunately, hate speech creates a zero-sum situation: you have to choose whether to suppress the hate speech, or the people it targets. There's no way to choose both No, you can choose both (suppress both Nazis and Jews), just not neither.