6 ms·

The paradox of tolerance is real. Seems like humans have to rediscover this fact every couple of generations, the hard way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa

by freen 8y ago

The paradox of tolerance is real. Seems like humans have to rediscover this fact every couple of generations, the hard way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

mindslight 8y ago
Isn't fighting intolerance exactly what someone who shoots up a mosque thinks they're doing? Finding paradoxes in absolutely-defined frameworks is expected - a concept like "tolerance" can only ever serve as an imperfect heuristic. To proceed beyond its limits, you must judge by other metrics.
- Random_BSD_Geek 8y ago
  I don't particularly care what someone who murders a bunch of people "thinks they're doing." Perhaps that makes me intolerant.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    You mean that you don't care about discouraging the next one? That's the motivation to understand. The point is that this "Paradox of tolerance" meme is invokable to escalate the aggression of any viewpoint - a paradox in the common (not not A -> A) logic system means anything can be proved. We don't have a problem with the murderer and his enablers because they were intolerant, but because they committed and encouraged murder.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      >You mean that you don't care about discouraging the next one?... Can't really discourage the next one at this point unfortunately. People are going to do things like this, they have been for a while and will continue to do so in the future. These ideological extremists will be arguing back and forth forever. All that said, there is the completely separate question of what our counter-terrorism infrastructure should be doing to identify and neutralize these threats. But that's not so much "discouraging" the next attack as it is attempting to keep the number of attacks to a minimum. Because I can pretty much guarantee, the counter-terrorism guys in NZ, or most other western nations, are not gonna be visiting suspected terrorists for the purposes of having a conversation in the hopes of "discouraging" them.
      - drusepth 8y ago
        The motivation behind understanding what drives these kinds of extremists is to understand what about their view of the world drove them to start shooting people up, and then identify what led them to that point in their life and start addressing those problems such that other people don't end up in a similar position. A bit of a cat and mouse game in an abstract sense, but understanding and preventing future attacks by like-minded individuals requires understanding what leads someone to such a bad state in the first place. This is, of course, in _addition_ to other counter-terrorism infrastructure like intelligence gathering, monitoring, security, response, etc. Many of those more well-known systems are intended to identify bad actors and prevent them from doing bad things; understanding bad actors can lead to more methods to prevent regular people from becoming bad actors in the first place.
        bilbo0s 8y ago
        >* identify what led them to that point in their life and start addressing those problems...* Here's the thing, people been doing this for literally MILLENNIA now, there is no way to identify everything that will drive extremists to kill. That's the essential problem with that philosophy. Even where you are able to identify the core issue, say for instance the religious divisions in the MidEast region, there is really no way to address the core problem. It's just far easier to engage the extremists, than it is to convince Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, to NOT be Christians, or Jews, or Muslims. Extremists will just never be placated, and we shouldn't put too much effort into trying, because that gets people killed as well.
  - mjfl 8y ago
    Well the whole point of the question was to be careful unless you become the kind of person who murders people so it's a little ironic that you completely dismissed it.
- tomp 8y ago
  You make a very good point but it took me a bit long to understand it :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lugg 8y ago
I kind of dislike that view. It's very narrow minded. It also depends on your definition of tolerance. Tolerance in my opinion is inherently something on a sliding scale. In other words, to be tolerant you must by definition find certain things tolerable [to some degree]. I would posit that being tolerant and intolerant to intolerance is not a mutually exclusive stste. You can be both to varying degrees. In fact, being somewhat intolerant of intolerance is probably a prerequisite to being truly tollerant. That middle ground is what we need to protect and preserve. Acting like you must be one of the other is something a clever 5 year old would do.
- rgoulter 8y ago
  My understanding: the line Popper draws is "allow any opinion if it's willing to engage in rational argument and kept in check by public opinion". Popper's definition is quoted in the Wikipedia article: """Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — 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. 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""" (It's fine to disagree with Popper about where a good line to draw is; I think Popper's going for "maximum tolerance", and is noting that tolerating 'intolerant = unwilling to engage in rational argument' would reduce tolerance).
  - lugg 8y ago
    I was less talking about where the line was and more just confused by whether it was a paradox or not. I'm still not sure I get it but I think my understanding of a paradox was incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-paradox-and-a-logical-contradiction https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-parad... Strictly speaking I think it is a paradox. Where I got stuck is whether tolerance and intolerance are concepts in absolute. I dont think think they are absolute terms and in fact can be used to describe partial states, in other words, they can be used in this form but not [always] result in a logical contradiction which is where the paradox is coming from in this situation.
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
The paradox of tolerance is twaddle because it works for literally any viewpoint in the world. Your side righteously doesn't tolerate the intolerance your opponents and then your opponents righteously doesn't tolerate your side's intolerance. Both sides are perfectly and equally "justified" in their refusal to tolerate the other and 'round and 'round it goes. Citing the "paradox of tolerance" is nothing but a faux intellectual fig leaf for those who want to establish controls on what is allowed to be said.
- freen 8y ago
  What is it you want to say but feel you can’t? No one will lock you up... https://www.xkcd.com/1357/ https://www.xkcd.com/1357/
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > What is it you want to say but feel you can’t? Okay, here I go: "Modern progressives aren't liberals because freedom of speech is a core tenet of liberalism and therefore they should be treated as a hazard to the liberal movement." There, I said it; I feel better now. Thank you for your kind invitation.
    - freen 8y ago
      You seem to be making precisely the error illustrated in the XKCD comic, confusing social consequences of speech with legality. Where are modern progressives arguing to use state power to make some speech illegal?
      - freen 8y ago
        Moreover, recent events seem to indicate that it is precisely conservatives who are interested in using state power to silence speech: https://medium.com/s/oversight/devin-nunes-has-a-cow-and-free-speech-is-endangered-90ae649dc569 https://medium.com/s/oversight/devin-nunes-has-a-cow-and-fre...
jadell 8y ago
It's only real if you believe that tolerance is some sort of moral absolute, demanding that you be tolerant even of the intolerant. It's not. Tolerance is more like a peace treaty. When someone breaks it, they are no longer protected by it. I've found this post[0] from a few years ago to be a good explanation. Once you look at tolerance this way, the paradox disappears. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

by freen 8y ago

mindslight 8y ago

Isn't fighting intolerance exactly what someone who shoots up a mosque thinks they're doing? Finding paradoxes in absolutely-defined frameworks is expected - a concept like "tolerance" can only ever serve as an imperfect heuristic. To proceed beyond its limits, you must judge by other metrics.

Random_BSD_Geek 8y ago
I don't particularly care what someone who murders a bunch of people "thinks they're doing." Perhaps that makes me intolerant.
- mindslight 8y ago
  You mean that you don't care about discouraging the next one? That's the motivation to understand. The point is that this "Paradox of tolerance" meme is invokable to escalate the aggression of any viewpoint - a paradox in the common (not not A -> A) logic system means anything can be proved. We don't have a problem with the murderer and his enablers because they were intolerant, but because they committed and encouraged murder.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    >You mean that you don't care about discouraging the next one?... Can't really discourage the next one at this point unfortunately. People are going to do things like this, they have been for a while and will continue to do so in the future. These ideological extremists will be arguing back and forth forever. All that said, there is the completely separate question of what our counter-terrorism infrastructure should be doing to identify and neutralize these threats. But that's not so much "discouraging" the next attack as it is attempting to keep the number of attacks to a minimum. Because I can pretty much guarantee, the counter-terrorism guys in NZ, or most other western nations, are not gonna be visiting suspected terrorists for the purposes of having a conversation in the hopes of "discouraging" them.
    - drusepth 8y ago
      The motivation behind understanding what drives these kinds of extremists is to understand what about their view of the world drove them to start shooting people up, and then identify what led them to that point in their life and start addressing those problems such that other people don't end up in a similar position. A bit of a cat and mouse game in an abstract sense, but understanding and preventing future attacks by like-minded individuals requires understanding what leads someone to such a bad state in the first place. This is, of course, in _addition_ to other counter-terrorism infrastructure like intelligence gathering, monitoring, security, response, etc. Many of those more well-known systems are intended to identify bad actors and prevent them from doing bad things; understanding bad actors can lead to more methods to prevent regular people from becoming bad actors in the first place.
      - bilbo0s 8y ago
        >* identify what led them to that point in their life and start addressing those problems...* Here's the thing, people been doing this for literally MILLENNIA now, there is no way to identify everything that will drive extremists to kill. That's the essential problem with that philosophy. Even where you are able to identify the core issue, say for instance the religious divisions in the MidEast region, there is really no way to address the core problem. It's just far easier to engage the extremists, than it is to convince Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, to NOT be Christians, or Jews, or Muslims. Extremists will just never be placated, and we shouldn't put too much effort into trying, because that gets people killed as well.
- mjfl 8y ago
  Well the whole point of the question was to be careful unless you become the kind of person who murders people so it's a little ironic that you completely dismissed it.
tomp 8y ago
You make a very good point but it took me a bit long to understand it :)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lugg 8y ago

I kind of dislike that view. It's very narrow minded. It also depends on your definition of tolerance. Tolerance in my opinion is inherently something on a sliding scale. In other words, to be tolerant you must by definition find certain things tolerable [to some degree]. I would posit that being tolerant and intolerant to intolerance is not a mutually exclusive stste. You can be both to varying degrees. In fact, being somewhat intolerant of intolerance is probably a prerequisite to being truly tollerant. That middle ground is what we need to protect and preserve. Acting like you must be one of the other is something a clever 5 year old would do.

rgoulter 8y ago
My understanding: the line Popper draws is "allow any opinion if it's willing to engage in rational argument and kept in check by public opinion". Popper's definition is quoted in the Wikipedia article: """Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — 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. 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""" (It's fine to disagree with Popper about where a good line to draw is; I think Popper's going for "maximum tolerance", and is noting that tolerating 'intolerant = unwilling to engage in rational argument' would reduce tolerance).
- lugg 8y ago
  I was less talking about where the line was and more just confused by whether it was a paradox or not. I'm still not sure I get it but I think my understanding of a paradox was incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-paradox-and-a-logical-contradiction https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-parad... Strictly speaking I think it is a paradox. Where I got stuck is whether tolerance and intolerance are concepts in absolute. I dont think think they are absolute terms and in fact can be used to describe partial states, in other words, they can be used in this form but not [always] result in a logical contradiction which is where the paradox is coming from in this situation.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

The paradox of tolerance is twaddle because it works for literally any viewpoint in the world. Your side righteously doesn't tolerate the intolerance your opponents and then your opponents righteously doesn't tolerate your side's intolerance. Both sides are perfectly and equally "justified" in their refusal to tolerate the other and 'round and 'round it goes. Citing the "paradox of tolerance" is nothing but a faux intellectual fig leaf for those who want to establish controls on what is allowed to be said.

freen 8y ago
What is it you want to say but feel you can’t? No one will lock you up... https://www.xkcd.com/1357/ https://www.xkcd.com/1357/
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > What is it you want to say but feel you can’t? Okay, here I go: "Modern progressives aren't liberals because freedom of speech is a core tenet of liberalism and therefore they should be treated as a hazard to the liberal movement." There, I said it; I feel better now. Thank you for your kind invitation.
  - freen 8y ago
    You seem to be making precisely the error illustrated in the XKCD comic, confusing social consequences of speech with legality. Where are modern progressives arguing to use state power to make some speech illegal?
    - freen 8y ago
      Moreover, recent events seem to indicate that it is precisely conservatives who are interested in using state power to silence speech: https://medium.com/s/oversight/devin-nunes-has-a-cow-and-free-speech-is-endangered-90ae649dc569 https://medium.com/s/oversight/devin-nunes-has-a-cow-and-fre...

jadell 8y ago

It's only real if you believe that tolerance is some sort of moral absolute, demanding that you be tolerant even of the intolerant. It's not. Tolerance is more like a peace treaty. When someone breaks it, they are no longer protected by it. I've found this post[0] from a few years ago to be a good explanation. Once you look at tolerance this way, the paradox disappears. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...