5 ms·
Paradox of tolerance? I think it's built on shaky foundations at best. It assumes that tolerance is the highest value, to which other values (e.g. free speech)
by deogeo 8y ago
Paradox of tolerance? I think it's built on shaky foundations at best. It assumes that tolerance is the highest value, to which other values (e.g. free speech) can be sacrificed, if necessary. If you value freedom of speech higher, you would not make that sacrifice.
Second, it's doubtful that allowing intolerant speech makes a society intolerant. After all, the society became tolerant when intolerant speech was allowed and accepted - why would this process now reverse itself?
And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only permitted ideas may be expressed.
- anoncake 8y agoFree speech is tolerance of other opinions. > why would this process now reverse itself? Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen. > And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only permitted ideas may be expressed. Thats what the makers of the Weimar Constitution thought.
- deogeo 8y ago> Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen. It does, but it is not guaranteed to - not even close. So to claim a tolerant society can't exist without censorship is reaching.
- anoncake 8y agoMaybe a tolerant society can exist without censorship. But censorship is no the only way not to tolerate intolerance. If advocating against free speech makes you a pariah, then society does not tolerate intolerance even though it is legal. Another possibility is that there are other mechanisms that can protect tolerance, such as a constitution that is very hard to change. The paradox of tolerance would not apply to societies that have such a mechanism, but still would be valid for others.
- Aloha 8y agoI'd argue there is a fundamental difference between tolerating intolerant thought and tolerating violent (or even pseudo-violent) acts. People will always have intolerant thoughts, they may not however, ever take that to violent actions.
- anoncake 8y agoWe cant ban intolerant thoughts whether we want to or not since we cannot read peoples minds. Besides people cant just change their believes at will. The question is what we do about intolerant speech.
- Aloha 8y agoBasically all intolerant speech should be allowed, so long as you're not trying to call people to arms to act on that speech - the speech itself probably doesn't matter much. I'd rather be able to spot the hateful people, than not know who they are and let them act on their hate in silence.
- bduerst 8y ago>Basically all intolerant speech should be allowed, so long as you're not trying to call people to arms to act on that speech So all intolerant speech should be allowed, except for this speech that shouldn't be tolerated?
- Aloha 8y agoGenerally, yes, provided you're not calling people to action, presenting an imminent and present threat, it certainly should be allowed. I have as much trouble with the government banning speech as I do with people getting doxed for saying something unpopular.