3 ms·

> 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 des

by 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.
    - jonahx 8y ago
      Sure, I agree with this. > you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. This is the tricky part. What if violence is necessary? You can claim it should always be a last resort, and I'd agree. But you can't claim that it's never necessary.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        I don't think I did claim that? Yeah, it might well be necessary, sure. In particular, when someone is themselves using/threatening to use violence to prevent you from doing something that doesn't harm them. But the point is you (or rather, the state) then apply/ies as much violence as is necessary so that you can do what you have the right to do, but you don't beat them up to teach them a lesson. Or rather, if you do punish them in this scenario, you punish them for their use of violence, not for their idea.
        jonahx 8y ago
        Then we agree.
  - Digory 8y ago
    "happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse." This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available. And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of "force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.
jonahx 8y ago
This is a risk, but the risk cuts the other way too. From the Popper quote in the article: > 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Both things are true: - Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. - Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment and practical considerations.

by umvi 8y ago

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.
  - jonahx 8y ago
    Sure, I agree with this. > you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. This is the tricky part. What if violence is necessary? You can claim it should always be a last resort, and I'd agree. But you can't claim that it's never necessary.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      I don't think I did claim that? Yeah, it might well be necessary, sure. In particular, when someone is themselves using/threatening to use violence to prevent you from doing something that doesn't harm them. But the point is you (or rather, the state) then apply/ies as much violence as is necessary so that you can do what you have the right to do, but you don't beat them up to teach them a lesson. Or rather, if you do punish them in this scenario, you punish them for their use of violence, not for their idea.
      - jonahx 8y ago
        Then we agree.
- Digory 8y ago
  "happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse." This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available. And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of "force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.

jonahx 8y ago

This is a risk, but the risk cuts the other way too. From the Popper quote in the article: > 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Both things are true: - Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. - Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment and practical considerations.