9 ms·

Paradox of tolerance

hprotagonist 8y ago
In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the other fellow’s nose doesn’t begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the religionists would have it. -- Arthur Garfield Hays, "Democracy Works" (1939) In a very Russell's Teapot way, it's fairly trivial to blow up absolute statements by recursing. This doesn't say much about the content of the idea, per se.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  An interesting take on the idea expressed in your quote is Steven Smith's paper "The Hollowness of the Harm Principle"[0]; in it, he argues that the harm principle is regarded as so powerful because it seems to be just intuition - when a teacher on the schoolyard tells us "your freedom to swing your arm stops where Billy's nose begins" seems just such obvious common sense. However this can't be used for a justification for the harm principle, because as it turns out defining harm is the real issue. Smith argues that the harm principle is "hollow" - it is used as a vessel to carry the content of our ideas no matter what they are - so long as we can say they're harmful. Smith uses the example of someone who can be said to experience "harm" simply by knowing that someone is watching pornography, for instance. Smith actually takes up J.S. Mill himself - on utilitarian conceptions, what these anti-pornography people experience really can be said to be meaningfully harm. The quote dosen't get to the point that law isn't (or usually isn't) about policing thoughts, even as the "religionists" would have it, it's about preventing action, and it is of course no secret that speech really can be harmful - assault, child pornography and threats, for instance - or to take it to the extreme, when I defraud someone's bank account online, aren't I just sending messages to the web server? Surely to stop me would infringe on my right to free speech, no? >Richard Arneson observes that “emotional reactions to what one’s neighbors and fellow citizens are doing can be powerful and can be virtually unavoidable for persons who have not detached themselves from all personal concern for the quality of life in their community.” Arneson suggests that “we should think of citizens who would be appalled at the thought of living in a community that tolerates Roman-style gladiatorial spectacles as harmed by the bareknowledge that such events are occurring...” [0] https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=lwps_public https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hprotagonist 8y ago
    To pithily recapitulate personalism (and what an appropriate day for it, too), I'm fond of this exchange in Carpe Jugulum as a rough heuristic for what constitutes harm: There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats. “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax. “It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.” “Nope.” “Pardon?” “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is. “It’s a lot more complicated than that . . .” “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes . . .” “But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . ”
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      What a wonderfully Kantian exchange, thank you for sharing that. Even if what she says is true, though it seems that there are instance of treating people as objects which some (most?) people do not consider to be harmful, at least in this society - employing someone under a wage, for instance (covered by Frederic Lordon in his great book on Marx and Spinoza) or pornography which some commentators deem to be identical to the objectification of the people it portrays (particularly women). Ironically, though, many thins which are harmful actually depend on recognizing (thinking) of people as human, and then denying that humanity - there must be something to deny. An insult comparing someone to dirt is only ever said because they recognize firstly that the person isn't dirt - and that's why it's effective. The principle is same with objectification. In pornography, for example, it's only appealing because the viewers know on some level that the people portrayed are more than objects, and the degradation they experience is part of the show, precisely what makes it so titillating.
      - hprotagonist 8y ago
paulddraper 8y ago
I've seen this many times, but I've never really bought it. I will draw an analogy: "The Paradox of Democracy". --- "In order to maintain a democratic society, the society must prevent undemocratic members from voting. "Unlimited democracy must lead to the disappearance of democracy. If we extend unlimited democracy even to those who are undemocratic, if we are not prepared to defend a democratic society against the onslaught of the undemocratic, then the democrats will be destroyed, and democracy with them." --- This is in fact, what many have believed for centuries -- that of evils of populism will overwhelm democracy egalitarianism. I understand the view, but on the balance, I believe it to more false than true.
- _red 8y ago
  The problem is one of game-theory. In the past decade, the US has become where nearly 50% of the population either doesn't pay any taxes and/or are primarily subsidized by government entitlements. In this situation, there is no downside to them crashing the system. They will come to demand ever more entitlements since they have no skin in the game. The politicos, of course, will pander to them for votes and try to implement every different kind of redistribution scheme they come up with. Take this same scenario and apply to the too-big-to-fail banks and the military industrial complex, and you have "our democracy". How will this end?
  - michaelchisari 8y ago
    nearly 50% of the population either doesn't pay any taxes and/or are primarily subsidized by government entitlements. Five Myths About the 47 Percent https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-percent/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-p...
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      The more precise statement is that 45% of U.S. households pay no federal income tax. [1] [2] There are other kinds of taxes, such as sales tax, payroll tax, gas tax, etc. But talk about raising taxes usually focuses on income tax since nearly half of Americans don't pay it anyway. In fact, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 39% of the federal income tax burden. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#46e2bb9e61cb https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimate... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-... [3] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-20...
umvi 8y ago
> Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. -- Mosiah 29:26 It's not a paradox, it's just how democracies work. As long as the voice of the people are tolerant, it should be okay. You only need to start worrying if the intolerant are no longer a lesser part of the people and have an ever growing share of the voice of the people. The thing I hate most about the "paradox of tolerance" is its ability to be weaponized to further political goals. All you have to do is re-categorize what your opponent(s) are doing as "intolerance" such that you can now safely be intolerant of them. Your opponent is religious? Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance!
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance! While there is a risk that this works in practice, it's not really coherent. Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant.
  - jonahx 8y ago
    > Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant. How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse. If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that, also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      Yes, but the point is that you should be targeting the idea, not the person. That doesn't mean that what you do can't affect the person, only that you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. So, you enforce that gay people can marry, but you don't go after people who oppose gay marriage for their opinion.
jawns 8y ago
Cornell law professor Robert Hockett argues that "to tolerate" and "to not tolerate" are infinitives (verb forms) that require a direct object to make any real sense. Some infinitives don't need a direct object — like "to dance" or "to sigh." Other infinitives do — like "to hit" and "to give." No one simply gives in the abstract. They always give something. Likewise, Hockett argues, no one simply tolerates in the abstract. They always tolerate (or don't tolerate) something. A consequence of Hockett's way of speaking about tolerance is that no one can ever really be said to be "tolerant" or "intolerant" generally — that is, without any qualifiers. They can be tolerant of this, they can be tolerant of that, but they can't simply be tolerant. Indeed, the only direct object they can't be tolerant of is "everything" — which would mean the same as being tolerant with no direct object, which would encompass intolerance, which would be paradoxical. Oh, sure there might be some people who are intolerant of just about everything ... but even "just about everything" constitutes a direct object, if a broad one. As long as it's "just about everything" and not "everything" (which would encompass intolerance itself), then there is no paradox. --- Catholic archbishop Fulton Sheen on the false understanding of tolerance that permeates our culture, from his 1932 book: "There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. "Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. "This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. "We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
claudiawerner 8y ago
The paradox of tolerance (which some say isn't truly a paradox but I think that's beside the point of its content) was supported by Karl Popper, famously a defender of what he termed "the open society" - but interestingly a much more aggressive and partisan option was put forward by an intellecutal rival to whom he was almost completely opposed - Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse's essay is a good read, whether you agree with it or not, for a different take on the issue at the height of what Marcuse saw as widespread dulling of our critical faculties. J.S. Mill's democracy relies on the populace being informed - any attempt to block the populace being informed is therefore a threat to democracy. If democracy is blocked, democratic means cannot be used to solve the problem. Hence, Marcuse argues, we might have to resort to apparently undemocratic means to resolve such a conflict.[0] [0] https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetol...
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I think you're getting downvoted 'cause you've taken Paradox to imply contradiction or impossibility - which it doesn't (merely the appearance or illusion of impossibility.)
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    I didn't really want to comment on what 'paradox' meant - I really don't think it's important, whether it's a true paradox or not doesn't matter to what the concept is trying to say. I wish it wasn't named "paradox" such that people could stop worrying about the naming and start talking about the concept it proposes instead.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      I agree, so it's a shame your comment was misleading re the meaning of "Paradox"; I think everyone leapt on that error, I doubt they disagree re Marcuse.
jadell 8y ago
I forget where I first heard this, but "Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact." As soon as one side has broken the treaty by being intolerant, they are no longer protected by the treaty. There is no requirement in a tolerant society to tolerate intolerance.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  That sounds like a rephrasing of the quote, “The constitution isn’t a suicide pact.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su... It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
  - jadell 8y ago
    You're right. I seem to have been paraphrasing a blog post[0] I read a few years ago. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      That was a very interesting read. It occurred to me as I was reading that “peace” as a moral precept is ostensibly central to Christianity, right down to not defending yourself. Obviously that doesn’t describe the actual history of the religion, an probably doesn’t describe any extant group. Any group that was so unwilling to defend itself was probably destroyed or absorbed centuries ago. His descriptions really resonated with me, especially as regards the usual framing of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel, so the usual rhetoric goes, is much more powerful than Hamas or the PLO, so they shouldn’t respond using that power. In essence they should suffer a death by a thousand cuts, because of how it makes people feel to see a weaker group lose to a stronger one. Of course it’s also a convenient bludgeon to rely on schoolyard logic to try and restrict people, groups, or nations from defending themselves.
daenz 8y ago
It's funny that this paradox can be used to justify extremism on both sides: left - we're intolerant of unfettered free speech because it leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance right - we're intolerant of certain cultures because the proliferation of those cultures leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance
- jonahx 8y ago
  I have no idea why this is being downvoted. Logically, that both these arguments can be made is a truism. Practically, we see versions of this on both sides every day. It doesn't mean that the left and right are both wrong, or both absurd. It means that this issue can't be settled by principle alone.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Perhaps considering "tolerance" purely by itself is not the best approach?
zaarn 8y ago
Nietzsche touched somewhat on the paradox of tolerance with the last men; a society in which everyone is pacifist, living comfortable. Conflict and challenges have been eliminated. Individuals are tired of life, take no risks. A life where no intolerant people exist. Suffering is necessary for life, he argues ("That which does not kill me makes me stronger") and that likely includes the tolerance we extend to others. How much suffering should society endure by intolerant members to ensure it grows into something better? A difficult question (there is probably no answer). IMO some intolerant individuals, must exist in society for society to progress and grow, to drive progress for the sake of leaving the intolerant behind and to show us a mirror of our worst selves and a starting line we must grow distant to.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  I guess the meta consideration for Nietzches world is that it also must be that case that everyone tolerates that world and that no one is intolerant of it, because if any individual is intolerant of that particular world and that particular life they will chose not to live it and break that world. What I take from this is that there is just an endless dialectical loop that will play out ad infinitum where one group will vie for power over another and at some point succeed and they in turn will have the same thing happen to them.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Possibly, yes. The senseless up and down of society has, however, driven humanity to land on the moon, so I guess it's good enough to keep us going. So as long as it keeps going ad infinitum, that's also progress; constant change.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      I disagree it's progress. I think it is just constant change. I also think it's likely unavoidable, so I don't lament about it too much. Actually when I read Why Nations Fail was the first time I realised that things don't only go in the direction of progress and that sometimes all the progress a society has made is erased and things revert. That got me to consider that it will happen to us at some point too. Actually, though this is an interesting point to philosophise on and I find Nietzsche a fun thinker. I guess what you are alluding to saying that this endless loop is always driving forward progress (or maybe your distinction is that it is always progressing and that isn't necessarily a value judgement on whether the 'progress' is good or bad, just that the situation is always becoming different), is that perhaps and I think that in some way this is the case that our actions and the record of it sort of acts like a ratchet. That is, it turns one way and once it turns that way it doesn't turn back the other way. That's analagous to 'some things can't be unseen' I suppose. Even if it's all reset you can't negate how far we did come this time.
weberc2 8y ago
While I think this is true in some strict sense, I see a lot of people cite this as an excuse for intolerance against various groups. If a person can convince themselves that a group or person is intolerant, then the target deserves [unlimited] intolerance. And with a moral license like that, the standard for what constitutes “tolerance” basically vanishes. “Intolerance” becomes a property of groups we (especially people with powerful platforms like journalists and academics) already dislike.
- danharaj 8y ago
  It's already the case that you can ascribe any quality to any group by fiat and so therefore any criteria for being intolerant can be abused in the way that you say. There is nothing you can do to preclude dishonesty and sophistry.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    I don’t know; we didn’t used to have such a problem with dishonesty and sophestry. Integrity and morality generally was sort of rewarded with social currency, but that was considered old-fashioned and we did away with it. It wasn’t a perfect system, but I think we may have taken a wrong turn.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure Plato had been complaining about this stuff. I suppose we didn't use to have those problens before civilization became a thing.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        To be clear, I wasn't arguing that never before nor anywhere in the world was there ever issues with sophistry and dishonesty. Plato didn't live in America in the 1990s and 2000s.
- colordrops 8y ago
  And that is the reason why the definition of free speech is in the US is so encompassing and has so few exceptions.
bjt2n3904 8y ago
The root word of tolerance is toler -- to endure. The dictionary definition is a bit different, to accept. The "working definition" goes even further, to affirm. Those who do not affirm my beliefs are therefore, intolerant, and we can purge them from society.
- Fellshard 8y ago
  Pure post-modernism, distilled.
bottle 8y ago
If the definition of tolerant society S is one where everyone is tolerant of one another, then by definition it can't include anyone who's intolerant of at least one person in S. The intolerant person simply doesn't belong in S.
dooglius 8y ago
It is a mistake to treat tolerance as a binary quantity (which is hinted at in the use of the phrase "unlimited tolerance"). Rather, the appropriate question to ask is, what degree of intolerance should be given to which actions, in order to form a high-tolerance stable equilibrium?
vivekd 8y ago
I think this just shows that tolerance is a self defeating concept. Perhaps the celebration of tolerance should be replaced with celebration of other virtues like humility, empathy, patience, understanding and honest debate in search of truth. Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated. That's what the intolerant say to make tolerance seem absurd. All that tolerance is about is the recognition that there are lots of different ways to live that are compatible with the same, real, "ultimate truths", and that just being different doesn't mean you are wrong. Interpreting that to mean that there is no right and wrong is simply a straw man.
  - vivekd 8y ago
    I think there's a conflation going on here between tolerance of ideas and tolerance of people. My statement was regarding tolerance of ideas, you're talking about tolerance of people. So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. So applying this to real world example, my culture has the caste system which some experts say has been as damaging for the lower caste individuals as slavery has been for people in the West. Demanding tolerance of the caste system because we should 'tolerate different ways of living' is absurd. It is a bad idea and should be challenged. I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. This is a case where there is obvious truth vs untruth - ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false. Calling for intolerance of this untrue belief is in no way the same thing as calling for intolerance of or mistreatment of Indians or Hindu people.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. Yes. But the point is that it should be attacked because it is a bad idea, not because it is a different idea. There is no need for tolerance to be limitless in order to be considered tolerance, just as there is no need for democracy to accept the election of a dictator in order to be considered a democracy. > I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. Sure. But that doesn't mean that you are intolerant, the same way that attempts to assassinate (democratically elected) Hitler were not anti-democratic. It is neither necessary nor helpful to define those terms in such a way that they are self-defeating, there is a useful concept there that can sensibly be labeled "tolerance" that encompasses only the non-self-defeating aspects of tolerance. > ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, but it's usually better to avoid an unnecessary burden of proof ;-)
ivanhoe 8y ago
If the law is the "intolerance" of society to those who behave anti-social, then yes it's true. But so many nowadays try to justify their own radical ideas by citing this...
amadeuspagel 8y ago
Almost every position can be framed as a demand for tolerance. I just want to drive above the speed limit. I'm not hurting anyone. You can drive in whatever speed you prefer. Everyone who tries to stop me is intolerant. So implicit in calling someone "intolerant" without qualification is "intolerant of these things, that I think should be tolerated". This is how "I can tolerate everything except intolerance" becomes "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup"[1], that is, those people that have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be tolerated. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
- pastor_williams 8y ago
  I think there is definitely a bit of sleight of hand going on in order for people to describe whatever outgroup they want as intolerant. In the footnote where he describes the paradox, Popper describes the intolerant's actions as: 1. being unwilling to engage in rational argument 2. forbidding their followers from listening to rational argument 3. teaching their followers to answer rational argument with violence Usually when I see someone bring up the paradox of tolerance it is because they do not want to engage in rational argument and instead seek to justify pre-emptive violence against a person or group that is at most expressing intolerant opinions.
Mizza 8y ago
An idea not often discussed around this quote is that tolerance isn't actually virtuous, and, is perhaps itself a racist/classist/otherwise-exclusionary idea. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior (in whose honor I had a day off of work today) never once called for 'tolerance', the boycotts and sit-ins were not a demand for tolerance - they were a demand for integration. To tolerate is to "otherise" - you are _allowed_ to continue being as your are, but on the outside. To integrate, you do not require permission, but you do not continue as you are - both "sides" are transformed by the process. I think that we should abandon the idea of tolerance as an inherent virtue and look for pathways for mutually acceptable integration, rather than building rigid islands of tolerance.
- xvedejas 8y ago
  Is this really something different than / opposed to tolerance? Or just a stronger state, of tolerance plus integration? I would argue that tolerance is one necessary part of integration, not some exclusionary alternative.
  - Mizza 8y ago
    I think tolerance _alone_ is a "failure" scenario, and should absolutely not be considered a goal. Tolerance is, quite literally, a ghetto. We allow bad things to continue in the name of tolerance every day. I might even go further to say that integration paradoxically _requires_ some degree of intolerance - the integrated whole should be intolerant of "negative" aspects of the unintegrated, even if they are things that would be seen as protection of "positive" tradition/cultural values by those in a strictly "tolerant" camp on either side.
    - xvedejas 8y ago
      Maybe we just need a new word for the phenomenon which prevents tolerance from progressing towards integration?
      - Mizza 8y ago
cabaalis 8y ago
> 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. This works until group A decides that group B is indeed acting as described above, and moves to destroy them. It's just an application of paranoia, and being an American I see it from both left and right.
zozbot123 8y ago
> Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. > Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. If tolerance and the paradox of tolerance can both be weaponized equally easily, what does this make of the recommendation for not being "tolerant of the intolerant"? Isn't it simply a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?
jancsika 8y ago
I don't see the paradox. If intolerant speech turns into violence, extant rule of law gets triggered. I believe most countries have conspiracy laws to deal with groups that plan out a path from speech to violent destruction. So unless this is a "bootstrapping" thought experiment, I don't see the problem. On the other hand if intolerant speech doesn't generate violence, then the speech should not and cannot be curtailed without being unconstitutional-- at least in the U.S. Now, think of the common modern case which does an end run around what I've said. That is-- large sums of money paying for a) public relations to manipulate the public into voting/acting against their own interests, and b) using the resulting power to further corrupt the democratic process. Where does intolerance come into play in that scenario? AFAICT not at all. Now suppose society believes the paradox of tolerance is a thing. They will attempt to use intolerance as a kind of "emergency tool" to combat what they perceive to be an anti-democratic PR manipulation campaign. But the PR manipulation campaign already beat them once-- otherwise the democratic process wouldn't have gotten corrupted. It's like playing a chess game against a team of 10 grandmasters who corner you, and then you agree to let them add ten queens to their side if you can add one to your side. So a) I don't see the paradox, b) anti-democratic forces don't need intolerance to prevail, and c) introducing intolerance into the defense of democracy gives the enemies of freedom a force multiplier. Edit: clarification
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Maximizing tolerance is a poor moral framework. All societies and people differentiate behavior last between tolerable and intolerable. As a culture, there is pretty much universal agreement that murder is intolerable. There are however, differences between societies as to what is considered tolerable. The US considers making fun of deities tolerable, while in other societies blasphemy is intolerable and punishable by death. Toleration can also evolve. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, explicit racial discrimation and segregation was considered tolerable. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we have signaled that that behavior is intolerable. In addition, toleration has a pragmatic aspect. You may believe a behavior to be wrong, but it is not worth going to all out war over. For example, prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, Catholic principalities thought that their Protestant counterparts were intolerable and vice versa. However, after the 30 years war, while both Catholics and Protestants may not have liked each other, but decided that religious war between states was not worth it. At the extreme end, toleration is deciding what behaviors that you do not approve of are worth killing and being killed over, and which are not. Less extreme are deciding which behaviors you do not approve of are worth losing family, friendship, or business over. Toleration is by definition the tension between moral purity and inclusiveness. If we view it like then we can more logically talk about where the line between tolerable and intolerable should be, rather than both side putting forward sophist arguments why their opponent is intolerant and thus should not be tolerated.
iamnothere 8y ago
Popper's thought experiment is one of those neat little packaged concepts that people hear about and say "oh, right" and nod along with without really questioning its fundamental premise. From a practical standpoint, nobody reasonable would say that a society must be always tolerant to everyone, all the time. All tolerance has a limit in the real world. Furthermore, a society can certainly accept a modest level of intolerance before it starts to encounter serious problems. Little examples of intolerance happen every day, in every city and country in the world, and yet we keep shuffling along. Everyone also tends to ignore this part of his quote: "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." Popper follows this by saying that society must claim the right to suppress intolerance if it becomes a serious danger, but he is arguing against a strawman. Almost everyone would agree with this.

In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the other fellow’s nose doesn’t begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the religionists would have it. -- Arthur Garfield Hays, "Democracy Works" (1939) In a very Russell's Teapot way, it's fairly trivial to blow up absolute statements by recursing. This doesn't say much about the content of the idea, per se.

claudiawerner 8y ago
An interesting take on the idea expressed in your quote is Steven Smith's paper "The Hollowness of the Harm Principle"[0]; in it, he argues that the harm principle is regarded as so powerful because it seems to be just intuition - when a teacher on the schoolyard tells us "your freedom to swing your arm stops where Billy's nose begins" seems just such obvious common sense. However this can't be used for a justification for the harm principle, because as it turns out defining harm is the real issue. Smith argues that the harm principle is "hollow" - it is used as a vessel to carry the content of our ideas no matter what they are - so long as we can say they're harmful. Smith uses the example of someone who can be said to experience "harm" simply by knowing that someone is watching pornography, for instance. Smith actually takes up J.S. Mill himself - on utilitarian conceptions, what these anti-pornography people experience really can be said to be meaningfully harm. The quote dosen't get to the point that law isn't (or usually isn't) about policing thoughts, even as the "religionists" would have it, it's about preventing action, and it is of course no secret that speech really can be harmful - assault, child pornography and threats, for instance - or to take it to the extreme, when I defraud someone's bank account online, aren't I just sending messages to the web server? Surely to stop me would infringe on my right to free speech, no? >Richard Arneson observes that “emotional reactions to what one’s neighbors and fellow citizens are doing can be powerful and can be virtually unavoidable for persons who have not detached themselves from all personal concern for the quality of life in their community.” Arneson suggests that “we should think of citizens who would be appalled at the thought of living in a community that tolerates Roman-style gladiatorial spectacles as harmed by the bareknowledge that such events are occurring...” [0] https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=lwps_public https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  To pithily recapitulate personalism (and what an appropriate day for it, too), I'm fond of this exchange in Carpe Jugulum as a rough heuristic for what constitutes harm: There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats. “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax. “It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.” “Nope.” “Pardon?” “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is. “It’s a lot more complicated than that . . .” “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes . . .” “But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . ”
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    What a wonderfully Kantian exchange, thank you for sharing that. Even if what she says is true, though it seems that there are instance of treating people as objects which some (most?) people do not consider to be harmful, at least in this society - employing someone under a wage, for instance (covered by Frederic Lordon in his great book on Marx and Spinoza) or pornography which some commentators deem to be identical to the objectification of the people it portrays (particularly women). Ironically, though, many thins which are harmful actually depend on recognizing (thinking) of people as human, and then denying that humanity - there must be something to deny. An insult comparing someone to dirt is only ever said because they recognize firstly that the person isn't dirt - and that's why it's effective. The principle is same with objectification. In pornography, for example, it's only appealing because the viewers know on some level that the people portrayed are more than objects, and the degradation they experience is part of the show, precisely what makes it so titillating.
    - hprotagonist 8y ago

paulddraper 8y ago

I've seen this many times, but I've never really bought it. I will draw an analogy: "The Paradox of Democracy". --- "In order to maintain a democratic society, the society must prevent undemocratic members from voting. "Unlimited democracy must lead to the disappearance of democracy. If we extend unlimited democracy even to those who are undemocratic, if we are not prepared to defend a democratic society against the onslaught of the undemocratic, then the democrats will be destroyed, and democracy with them." --- This is in fact, what many have believed for centuries -- that of evils of populism will overwhelm democracy egalitarianism. I understand the view, but on the balance, I believe it to more false than true.

_red 8y ago
The problem is one of game-theory. In the past decade, the US has become where nearly 50% of the population either doesn't pay any taxes and/or are primarily subsidized by government entitlements. In this situation, there is no downside to them crashing the system. They will come to demand ever more entitlements since they have no skin in the game. The politicos, of course, will pander to them for votes and try to implement every different kind of redistribution scheme they come up with. Take this same scenario and apply to the too-big-to-fail banks and the military industrial complex, and you have "our democracy". How will this end?
- michaelchisari 8y ago
  nearly 50% of the population either doesn't pay any taxes and/or are primarily subsidized by government entitlements. Five Myths About the 47 Percent https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-percent/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-p...
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    The more precise statement is that 45% of U.S. households pay no federal income tax. [1] [2] There are other kinds of taxes, such as sales tax, payroll tax, gas tax, etc. But talk about raising taxes usually focuses on income tax since nearly half of Americans don't pay it anyway. In fact, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 39% of the federal income tax burden. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#46e2bb9e61cb https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimate... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-... [3] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-20...

umvi 8y ago

> Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. -- Mosiah 29:26 It's not a paradox, it's just how democracies work. As long as the voice of the people are tolerant, it should be okay. You only need to start worrying if the intolerant are no longer a lesser part of the people and have an ever growing share of the voice of the people. The thing I hate most about the "paradox of tolerance" is its ability to be weaponized to further political goals. All you have to do is re-categorize what your opponent(s) are doing as "intolerance" such that you can now safely be intolerant of them. Your opponent is religious? Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance! While there is a risk that this works in practice, it's not really coherent. Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant.
- jonahx 8y ago
  > Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant. How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse. If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that, also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Yes, but the point is that you should be targeting the idea, not the person. That doesn't mean that what you do can't affect the person, only that you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. So, you enforce that gay people can marry, but you don't go after people who oppose gay marriage for their opinion.

jawns 8y ago

Cornell law professor Robert Hockett argues that "to tolerate" and "to not tolerate" are infinitives (verb forms) that require a direct object to make any real sense. Some infinitives don't need a direct object — like "to dance" or "to sigh." Other infinitives do — like "to hit" and "to give." No one simply gives in the abstract. They always give something. Likewise, Hockett argues, no one simply tolerates in the abstract. They always tolerate (or don't tolerate) something. A consequence of Hockett's way of speaking about tolerance is that no one can ever really be said to be "tolerant" or "intolerant" generally — that is, without any qualifiers. They can be tolerant of this, they can be tolerant of that, but they can't simply be tolerant. Indeed, the only direct object they can't be tolerant of is "everything" — which would mean the same as being tolerant with no direct object, which would encompass intolerance, which would be paradoxical. Oh, sure there might be some people who are intolerant of just about everything ... but even "just about everything" constitutes a direct object, if a broad one. As long as it's "just about everything" and not "everything" (which would encompass intolerance itself), then there is no paradox. --- Catholic archbishop Fulton Sheen on the false understanding of tolerance that permeates our culture, from his 1932 book: "There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. "Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. "This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. "We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's."

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

claudiawerner 8y ago

The paradox of tolerance (which some say isn't truly a paradox but I think that's beside the point of its content) was supported by Karl Popper, famously a defender of what he termed "the open society" - but interestingly a much more aggressive and partisan option was put forward by an intellecutal rival to whom he was almost completely opposed - Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse's essay is a good read, whether you agree with it or not, for a different take on the issue at the height of what Marcuse saw as widespread dulling of our critical faculties. J.S. Mill's democracy relies on the populace being informed - any attempt to block the populace being informed is therefore a threat to democracy. If democracy is blocked, democratic means cannot be used to solve the problem. Hence, Marcuse argues, we might have to resort to apparently undemocratic means to resolve such a conflict.[0] [0] https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetol...

Nomentatus 8y ago
I think you're getting downvoted 'cause you've taken Paradox to imply contradiction or impossibility - which it doesn't (merely the appearance or illusion of impossibility.)
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  I didn't really want to comment on what 'paradox' meant - I really don't think it's important, whether it's a true paradox or not doesn't matter to what the concept is trying to say. I wish it wasn't named "paradox" such that people could stop worrying about the naming and start talking about the concept it proposes instead.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    I agree, so it's a shame your comment was misleading re the meaning of "Paradox"; I think everyone leapt on that error, I doubt they disagree re Marcuse.

jadell 8y ago

I forget where I first heard this, but "Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact." As soon as one side has broken the treaty by being intolerant, they are no longer protected by the treaty. There is no requirement in a tolerant society to tolerate intolerance.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
That sounds like a rephrasing of the quote, “The constitution isn’t a suicide pact.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su... It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
- jadell 8y ago
  You're right. I seem to have been paraphrasing a blog post[0] I read a few years ago. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    That was a very interesting read. It occurred to me as I was reading that “peace” as a moral precept is ostensibly central to Christianity, right down to not defending yourself. Obviously that doesn’t describe the actual history of the religion, an probably doesn’t describe any extant group. Any group that was so unwilling to defend itself was probably destroyed or absorbed centuries ago. His descriptions really resonated with me, especially as regards the usual framing of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel, so the usual rhetoric goes, is much more powerful than Hamas or the PLO, so they shouldn’t respond using that power. In essence they should suffer a death by a thousand cuts, because of how it makes people feel to see a weaker group lose to a stronger one. Of course it’s also a convenient bludgeon to rely on schoolyard logic to try and restrict people, groups, or nations from defending themselves.

daenz 8y ago

It's funny that this paradox can be used to justify extremism on both sides: left - we're intolerant of unfettered free speech because it leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance right - we're intolerant of certain cultures because the proliferation of those cultures leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance

jonahx 8y ago
I have no idea why this is being downvoted. Logically, that both these arguments can be made is a truism. Practically, we see versions of this on both sides every day. It doesn't mean that the left and right are both wrong, or both absurd. It means that this issue can't be settled by principle alone.
dwaltrip 8y ago
Perhaps considering "tolerance" purely by itself is not the best approach?

zaarn 8y ago

Nietzsche touched somewhat on the paradox of tolerance with the last men; a society in which everyone is pacifist, living comfortable. Conflict and challenges have been eliminated. Individuals are tired of life, take no risks. A life where no intolerant people exist. Suffering is necessary for life, he argues ("That which does not kill me makes me stronger") and that likely includes the tolerance we extend to others. How much suffering should society endure by intolerant members to ensure it grows into something better? A difficult question (there is probably no answer). IMO some intolerant individuals, must exist in society for society to progress and grow, to drive progress for the sake of leaving the intolerant behind and to show us a mirror of our worst selves and a starting line we must grow distant to.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
I guess the meta consideration for Nietzches world is that it also must be that case that everyone tolerates that world and that no one is intolerant of it, because if any individual is intolerant of that particular world and that particular life they will chose not to live it and break that world. What I take from this is that there is just an endless dialectical loop that will play out ad infinitum where one group will vie for power over another and at some point succeed and they in turn will have the same thing happen to them.
- zaarn 8y ago
  Possibly, yes. The senseless up and down of society has, however, driven humanity to land on the moon, so I guess it's good enough to keep us going. So as long as it keeps going ad infinitum, that's also progress; constant change.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    I disagree it's progress. I think it is just constant change. I also think it's likely unavoidable, so I don't lament about it too much. Actually when I read Why Nations Fail was the first time I realised that things don't only go in the direction of progress and that sometimes all the progress a society has made is erased and things revert. That got me to consider that it will happen to us at some point too. Actually, though this is an interesting point to philosophise on and I find Nietzsche a fun thinker. I guess what you are alluding to saying that this endless loop is always driving forward progress (or maybe your distinction is that it is always progressing and that isn't necessarily a value judgement on whether the 'progress' is good or bad, just that the situation is always becoming different), is that perhaps and I think that in some way this is the case that our actions and the record of it sort of acts like a ratchet. That is, it turns one way and once it turns that way it doesn't turn back the other way. That's analagous to 'some things can't be unseen' I suppose. Even if it's all reset you can't negate how far we did come this time.

weberc2 8y ago

While I think this is true in some strict sense, I see a lot of people cite this as an excuse for intolerance against various groups. If a person can convince themselves that a group or person is intolerant, then the target deserves [unlimited] intolerance. And with a moral license like that, the standard for what constitutes “tolerance” basically vanishes. “Intolerance” becomes a property of groups we (especially people with powerful platforms like journalists and academics) already dislike.

danharaj 8y ago
It's already the case that you can ascribe any quality to any group by fiat and so therefore any criteria for being intolerant can be abused in the way that you say. There is nothing you can do to preclude dishonesty and sophistry.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I don’t know; we didn’t used to have such a problem with dishonesty and sophestry. Integrity and morality generally was sort of rewarded with social currency, but that was considered old-fashioned and we did away with it. It wasn’t a perfect system, but I think we may have taken a wrong turn.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure Plato had been complaining about this stuff. I suppose we didn't use to have those problens before civilization became a thing.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      To be clear, I wasn't arguing that never before nor anywhere in the world was there ever issues with sophistry and dishonesty. Plato didn't live in America in the 1990s and 2000s.
colordrops 8y ago
And that is the reason why the definition of free speech is in the US is so encompassing and has so few exceptions.

bjt2n3904 8y ago

The root word of tolerance is toler -- to endure. The dictionary definition is a bit different, to accept. The "working definition" goes even further, to affirm. Those who do not affirm my beliefs are therefore, intolerant, and we can purge them from society.

Fellshard 8y ago
Pure post-modernism, distilled.

bottle 8y ago

If the definition of tolerant society S is one where everyone is tolerant of one another, then by definition it can't include anyone who's intolerant of at least one person in S. The intolerant person simply doesn't belong in S.

dooglius 8y ago

It is a mistake to treat tolerance as a binary quantity (which is hinted at in the use of the phrase "unlimited tolerance"). Rather, the appropriate question to ask is, what degree of intolerance should be given to which actions, in order to form a high-tolerance stable equilibrium?

vivekd 8y ago

I think this just shows that tolerance is a self defeating concept. Perhaps the celebration of tolerance should be replaced with celebration of other virtues like humility, empathy, patience, understanding and honest debate in search of truth. Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated. That's what the intolerant say to make tolerance seem absurd. All that tolerance is about is the recognition that there are lots of different ways to live that are compatible with the same, real, "ultimate truths", and that just being different doesn't mean you are wrong. Interpreting that to mean that there is no right and wrong is simply a straw man.
- vivekd 8y ago
  I think there's a conflation going on here between tolerance of ideas and tolerance of people. My statement was regarding tolerance of ideas, you're talking about tolerance of people. So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. So applying this to real world example, my culture has the caste system which some experts say has been as damaging for the lower caste individuals as slavery has been for people in the West. Demanding tolerance of the caste system because we should 'tolerate different ways of living' is absurd. It is a bad idea and should be challenged. I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. This is a case where there is obvious truth vs untruth - ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false. Calling for intolerance of this untrue belief is in no way the same thing as calling for intolerance of or mistreatment of Indians or Hindu people.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas. Yes. But the point is that it should be attacked because it is a bad idea, not because it is a different idea. There is no need for tolerance to be limitless in order to be considered tolerance, just as there is no need for democracy to accept the election of a dictator in order to be considered a democracy. > I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. Sure. But that doesn't mean that you are intolerant, the same way that attempts to assassinate (democratically elected) Hitler were not anti-democratic. It is neither necessary nor helpful to define those terms in such a way that they are self-defeating, there is a useful concept there that can sensibly be labeled "tolerance" that encompasses only the non-self-defeating aspects of tolerance. > ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, but it's usually better to avoid an unnecessary burden of proof ;-)

ivanhoe 8y ago

If the law is the "intolerance" of society to those who behave anti-social, then yes it's true. But so many nowadays try to justify their own radical ideas by citing this...

amadeuspagel 8y ago

Almost every position can be framed as a demand for tolerance. I just want to drive above the speed limit. I'm not hurting anyone. You can drive in whatever speed you prefer. Everyone who tries to stop me is intolerant. So implicit in calling someone "intolerant" without qualification is "intolerant of these things, that I think should be tolerated". This is how "I can tolerate everything except intolerance" becomes "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup"[1], that is, those people that have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be tolerated. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

pastor_williams 8y ago
I think there is definitely a bit of sleight of hand going on in order for people to describe whatever outgroup they want as intolerant. In the footnote where he describes the paradox, Popper describes the intolerant's actions as: 1. being unwilling to engage in rational argument 2. forbidding their followers from listening to rational argument 3. teaching their followers to answer rational argument with violence Usually when I see someone bring up the paradox of tolerance it is because they do not want to engage in rational argument and instead seek to justify pre-emptive violence against a person or group that is at most expressing intolerant opinions.

Mizza 8y ago

An idea not often discussed around this quote is that tolerance isn't actually virtuous, and, is perhaps itself a racist/classist/otherwise-exclusionary idea. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior (in whose honor I had a day off of work today) never once called for 'tolerance', the boycotts and sit-ins were not a demand for tolerance - they were a demand for integration. To tolerate is to "otherise" - you are _allowed_ to continue being as your are, but on the outside. To integrate, you do not require permission, but you do not continue as you are - both "sides" are transformed by the process. I think that we should abandon the idea of tolerance as an inherent virtue and look for pathways for mutually acceptable integration, rather than building rigid islands of tolerance.

xvedejas 8y ago
Is this really something different than / opposed to tolerance? Or just a stronger state, of tolerance plus integration? I would argue that tolerance is one necessary part of integration, not some exclusionary alternative.
- Mizza 8y ago
  I think tolerance _alone_ is a "failure" scenario, and should absolutely not be considered a goal. Tolerance is, quite literally, a ghetto. We allow bad things to continue in the name of tolerance every day. I might even go further to say that integration paradoxically _requires_ some degree of intolerance - the integrated whole should be intolerant of "negative" aspects of the unintegrated, even if they are things that would be seen as protection of "positive" tradition/cultural values by those in a strictly "tolerant" camp on either side.
  - xvedejas 8y ago
    Maybe we just need a new word for the phenomenon which prevents tolerance from progressing towards integration?
    - Mizza 8y ago

cabaalis 8y ago

> 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. This works until group A decides that group B is indeed acting as described above, and moves to destroy them. It's just an application of paranoia, and being an American I see it from both left and right.

zozbot123 8y ago

> Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. > Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. If tolerance and the paradox of tolerance can both be weaponized equally easily, what does this make of the recommendation for not being "tolerant of the intolerant"? Isn't it simply a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?

jancsika 8y ago

I don't see the paradox. If intolerant speech turns into violence, extant rule of law gets triggered. I believe most countries have conspiracy laws to deal with groups that plan out a path from speech to violent destruction. So unless this is a "bootstrapping" thought experiment, I don't see the problem. On the other hand if intolerant speech doesn't generate violence, then the speech should not and cannot be curtailed without being unconstitutional-- at least in the U.S. Now, think of the common modern case which does an end run around what I've said. That is-- large sums of money paying for a) public relations to manipulate the public into voting/acting against their own interests, and b) using the resulting power to further corrupt the democratic process. Where does intolerance come into play in that scenario? AFAICT not at all. Now suppose society believes the paradox of tolerance is a thing. They will attempt to use intolerance as a kind of "emergency tool" to combat what they perceive to be an anti-democratic PR manipulation campaign. But the PR manipulation campaign already beat them once-- otherwise the democratic process wouldn't have gotten corrupted. It's like playing a chess game against a team of 10 grandmasters who corner you, and then you agree to let them add ten queens to their side if you can add one to your side. So a) I don't see the paradox, b) anti-democratic forces don't need intolerance to prevail, and c) introducing intolerance into the defense of democracy gives the enemies of freedom a force multiplier. Edit: clarification

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

Maximizing tolerance is a poor moral framework. All societies and people differentiate behavior last between tolerable and intolerable. As a culture, there is pretty much universal agreement that murder is intolerable. There are however, differences between societies as to what is considered tolerable. The US considers making fun of deities tolerable, while in other societies blasphemy is intolerable and punishable by death. Toleration can also evolve. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, explicit racial discrimation and segregation was considered tolerable. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we have signaled that that behavior is intolerable. In addition, toleration has a pragmatic aspect. You may believe a behavior to be wrong, but it is not worth going to all out war over. For example, prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, Catholic principalities thought that their Protestant counterparts were intolerable and vice versa. However, after the 30 years war, while both Catholics and Protestants may not have liked each other, but decided that religious war between states was not worth it. At the extreme end, toleration is deciding what behaviors that you do not approve of are worth killing and being killed over, and which are not. Less extreme are deciding which behaviors you do not approve of are worth losing family, friendship, or business over. Toleration is by definition the tension between moral purity and inclusiveness. If we view it like then we can more logically talk about where the line between tolerable and intolerable should be, rather than both side putting forward sophist arguments why their opponent is intolerant and thus should not be tolerated.

iamnothere 8y ago

Popper's thought experiment is one of those neat little packaged concepts that people hear about and say "oh, right" and nod along with without really questioning its fundamental premise. From a practical standpoint, nobody reasonable would say that a society must be always tolerant to everyone, all the time. All tolerance has a limit in the real world. Furthermore, a society can certainly accept a modest level of intolerance before it starts to encounter serious problems. Little examples of intolerance happen every day, in every city and country in the world, and yet we keep shuffling along. Everyone also tends to ignore this part of his quote: "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." Popper follows this by saying that society must claim the right to suppress intolerance if it becomes a serious danger, but he is arguing against a strawman. Almost everyone would agree with this.