22 ms·

Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. It draws a fine line between what's acceptable spee

Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. The line of thought you put forward, by contrast, rubs me in a very wrong way. It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis that they didn't have enough revenue, didn't own enough land, couldn't read and write well enough, etc. Allowing to disenfranchise voters on some arbitrary sophistication basis can and, if history is anything to go by, unfortunately will get abused. It breaks down to: who decides what's sophisticated enough? Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut in a you know it when you see it kind of way.

oarabbus_ 7y ago
You make some great points. Let me also ask you a devil's advocate question. "Let's go to oarabbus_'s house at <DOXXED ADDRESS> and kill him" is not protected speech, correct? I am sure everyone agrees upon this. But "Let's attack folks who are <oarabbus_'s ethnicity> as they are a scourge upon our nation" is protected? Why?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- TacticalTable 7y ago
  That is not protected speech. The 'attack' is the keyword. Therefore, supremacist groups typically say "<oarabbus_'s ethnicity> is destroying <oarabbus_'s country of residence>" which is legal. They're just connecting the dots the only way they know how.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    Yes, it is. The nuance he was intentionally illustrating is the basis of our entire law. The one key exception to freedom of speech is speech that will, with high certainty, provoke "imminent lawless action." And this is something that is interpreted in the most literal and conservative fashion possible. In his former statement he has a specific target, time, and location. It is extremely likely that his behavior will result in imminent unlawful action. By contrast condemning a large group lacks any specificity and is, in and of itself, not likely to suddenly drive any specific unlawful action.
    - afiori 7y ago
      Obviously the only relevant opinion is that of a judge, but... nope. I would say 'Let's kill <ethnicity>' as a standalone statement is illegal in every western country.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - rjf72 7y ago
        Issues similar to this have been brought up in the courts many times, and they almost invariably (sexual obscenity is one exception) yield lopsided results in favor of the 'offender.' One random recent case is Elonis vs the United States [1]. Elonis made statements online suggesting a desire to kill his estranged wife, later on kindergarten children, and then after that an FBI agent that had visited him in relation to the threat against children. He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. As an aside the links on the scotusblog are extremely high quality and provide lots of plain language analysis of the technical points. A phenomenal resource for any case or issue you're ever interested in learning about the legal nuances behind. For instance this [2] is their coverage of the 'gay cake' case. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-... [2] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
        afiori 7y ago
        > He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. In this context it was not indeed a standalone statement. from the wikipedia page indeed his statements are quite general and in a sense artistic. He did not argue for killing his ex-wife, there is no reading where he could encourage others to kill his ex-wife. He really had a wish for it and was talking about it. From what is reported in the wikipedia article even something like "I think it is a good idea to kill my ex-wife" would have been too much.
- 8ytecoder 7y ago
  Not a lawyer. But I don’t think it’s protected when it’s said with such specificity. “I hate ethnicity <X>” is probably protected.
  - throwawayor624 7y ago
    Not a lawyer either, but it's formally called The Brandenburg Test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'"
    - throwanem 7y ago
      One would want strong evidence for such a likelihood, of course. Evidence such as, for example, it having already done so three times before.
      - blockmarker 7y ago
        Steve Scalise's assassination was attempted by a radical anti-Trumper, Antifa has cracked open skills and sent people to the hospital. We have strong evidence that anti-Trump Facebook groups and subreddits cause real-world violence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- taurath 7y ago
  “Let’s attack” is generally the indicator here, and where we draw the line both morally and functionally. For example - there’s been very few partisan attacks on democrats despite the absolutely virulent “they’re destroying the country” speech from every conservative news sphere (and vice versa). Pundits have learned to walk that line because that has been the line that actual violence starts. 8chan has no filter or moderation on that. We see the results.
- heyyyouu 7y ago
  The exception in this standard is for "likely" and "imminent" violence. There are also exceptions for the commission of a crime, but then the crime has to be committed, and thus the intent. Episode 8 of the "Make No Law" First Amendment podcast has an excellent explanation of the difference between the two. That episode is a Q&A and covers other great topics as well. The entire podcast is excellent if you want a good, baseline understand on the exceptions to US first amendment law and why/how they are so narrowly defined.
- lr4444lr 7y ago
  It's not: you are planning direct violence in a clear, present, and imminent context.
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Then it turns into a game (game theory, not Risk) of whom defines "intolerance". And once duly defined, it is now verboten and removed from discussion and vernacular. Hot button topics: capitalism, abortion, religion, right vs left, states rights I think the founders had it better: govt can't censor speech, so the individuals and the public could decide. Just, the framers didn't imagine companies of such scope.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
weberc2 7y ago
I’m not familiar with Popper’s work, but I see that quote (“tolerate everything but intolerance”) used to rationalize intolerance toward perfectly tolerant individuals. Any evidence that the target is “intolerant” suffices, no matter how tenuous or contrived (“an intolerant person once said a good thing about <target> therefore <target> is intolerant). This seems similar to the concern you expressed about the GP’s philosophy. Did Popper lay out more stringent criteria for what constitutes “tolerance” and “intolerance”?
irrational 7y ago
>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.
- newhaus1994 7y ago
  The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.
  - irrational 7y ago
    So, the gay couple coming to the baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding are the intolerant ones because they are the first intolerant action in the chain? Because you know that will be how it will be spun.
    - DonHopkins 7y ago
      Congratulations on the apt handle. Your argument is irrational because it ignores the fact that the baker committed the first intolerant act in the chain, not the gay couple.
      - educationdata 7y ago
        So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
        DonHopkins 7y ago
        Absolutely: refusing to provide service to gays, when you provide the same services to other people just because they are not gay, is indeed literally intolerant, without your scare-quotes or any other qualification. What's so hard for you to understand about that? If you're trying to argue for some slippery weaselly nuanced non-standard definition of "intolerant" which excludes bigoted bakers that you just pulled out of your butt, remember that it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and also excuses gay couples for not tolerating homophobic bakers. It's not my responsibility to provide you with the standard definitions of common English words, when you're obviously capable of googling them yourself, and obviously misunderstanding them on purpose, and obviously not arguing in good faith. Look it up on Wikipedia yourself.
rjf72 7y ago
Popper's quote is often quite misconstrued. Here it is, in context: "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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." He is specifically framing the issue as one where an ideology goes outside of the realm of debate and on to violence. So for instance an ideology that says 'attack migrants' is obviously something that should be suppressed because these people have skipped the whole debate step and instead appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner. But, by contrast, an ideology that argues for reasons why unchecked migration may be unhealthy for a society and lobbies for according change is something some may consider intolerant, but is quite obviously not what he was referring to. On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.
- novaleaf 7y ago
  thank you so much for putting the Popper quote here. This is the first I have heard of it, but it sounds very reasonable.
  - makomk 7y ago
    Superficially, it does sound quite reasonable. The problem is that the quote itself is a call for people to abandon rational debate and use violence, not just against targets who have themselves eschewed debate for violence but against "any movement preaching intolerance". Whilst his justification is that those movements might themselves eschew debate for violence, he very specifically does not restrict this to movements which have done so or even threatened to do so. So for instance, Poppler's paradox is easily used to justify violent intolerance of anyone who opposes unchecked immigration. Not only are they preaching intolerance, but people with very similar-sounding views are actually violently attacking immigrants so it's easy to justify the claim that those ones might as well.
tripplethrendo 7y ago
What about Islamic intolerance?
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Is it your understanding that 100% of the followers of Islam are intolerant? There has never been a single person who identifies as Islamic who has been tolerant?
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't reply to egregious comments (a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls). This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Instead, flag the comment by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (There's a small karma threshold before flag links appear.)
Alex3917 7y ago
> It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis that they didn't have enough revenue, didn't own enough land, couldn't read and write well enough, etc. Democracy was basically conceived of as a pen-and-paper version of blockchain, where the goal was to create a balance between private property rights and the redistribution of wealth. Allowing people without proof-of-stake to vote wouldn't have made any sense in the beginning given that no one had any idea how the system would work. Keep in mind that the government was basically distributing free property to people as fast as possible so that more people could vote, and only stopped doing that once the country ran out of land. Even today, most people wouldn't want to live in a system where millions of people could just show up for vacation for a couple days, vote to give themselves ownership of all the country's assets, and then leave.
belorn 7y ago
I have a simplistic test when it comes to hate. I take the part of the message that identity the target and I change it to the opposite side of the political spectrum. If the comment/speech still sound like hate then it is hate. Thus my definition for intolerance is intolerance when it is independent of the reader/authors opinion about the target. A lot of people disprove of this approach, arguing that by doing so we ignore the oppressed or helping the oppressors, and thus we end up with different view about intolerance.
- lr4444lr 7y ago
  They're not disproving your approach: they're admitting tacitly that they have no moral compass in these matters apart from "evening up the score".
kriro 7y ago
I would also argue that asking for some minimum level of education/sophistication like the parent poster might qualify as the type of Platonic elitism which Popper was very much opposed to (The Open Society and its Enemies). But then again defining what qualifies as tolerance also has the potential problem Platonic elitism (i.e. who sets the criteria). It's a pretty tough job to balance freedom of speech and prevent hatebreeding at the same time. There are many philosophical approaches but I'd say that I haven't found one that satisfies me. Currently I'm leaning towards allowing everything in the hope that rationality will win out. At the end of the day I think it's simply a very tough topic with no clear cut answer.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Very true. He also said that suppression of intolerant ideology is unwise as long as public opinion counters it. 8chan isn't really the center of public opinion. There were third parties that pointed their fingers to those losers on these boards and now some people lashed out. I don't want to blame anyone besides the murder, but that is the game that is being played. Being opposed to nazisim wasn't exactly rocket science some years ago, so I don't really can get behind comments pointing to the need for education and that the lack of the latter is reason enough to curb speech.
Sawamara 7y ago
Exactly. Its very hard to claim that one is just putting stuff out on "the marketplace of ideas", when in reality, losing ground to an ideology that places people who have non-majority skin color, sexuality or religious views (or lack thereof) below the majority is simply dangerous to any minority, and should not be allowed to fester. This is not just about ideas, its about refusing others the full rights of personhood. And that should not stand in any ethical society.
- colordrops 7y ago
  What you speak of is one way of administering a society, but it certainly isn't anything close to free speech.
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Why should people tolerate things which they don't think it's in their interest to tolerate? If, for example, people believe it's harmful to their children to see people performing sexual acts in the street, why should they tolerate that behavior?
- Brain_Thief 7y ago
  Are you aware of anyone in this thread, or of any major national movement, advocating for a tolerance-based right to perform sexual acts in public in front of children? Looking past the strange and extreme strawman you've propped up, the reasons for tolerance in society are multitudinous. It prevents misunderstanding, fear, and hatred from festering and potentially giving rise to violence. As a simple thought experiment ask yourself the following question. How many individuals hailing from tolerant communities or organizations have you seen commit mass shootings? Contrast that to the number of individuals committing public violence who hold intolerance as a virtue. Public violence is a serious negative for everyone and its prevention should be reason enough to support tolerance as a basic tenet of societal health. The fact of the matter, no matter who might dislike it, is that modern societies are, for the most part, very diverse. Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world. What makes you think that violence is not a foregone conclusion if you start prohibiting people from expressing their genuinely held political beliefs or advocating for what they see as their interests?
    - Brain_Thief 7y ago
      I encourage you to look twice at your question - I believe that, under close scrutiny, you will see that it contains its own answer. No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public (unless you want to count the multitudes of minority voters who are regularly removed from voting rolls by GOP lawmakers or subjected to onerous identification requirements and other intimidation tactics...). If a person's "genuinely-held political beliefs" involve racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and if said person "genuinely believes" that the appropriate way to exert their opinion upon society is to discriminate against the people they hate or even inflict violence upon them, then they are crossing a line established by our societal norms and threatening the stability of society itself. If a person's genuinely held political beliefs lead them to enact discrimination or violence upon others then they have placed themselves outside of society and are by definition not valid input sources for determining societal norms and laws.
jredwards 7y ago
> clearcut in a you know it when you see it kind of way. "clearcut" and "you know it when you see it" seem like polar opposite concepts to me.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  If you know something the very moment you see it, then that fact is "clear" to you. That is the general meaning of "clearcut".
  - mtmickush 7y ago
    Clearcut is something that is easily / sharply defined. If you only know something when you see it then that thing is by its very nature not easily defined / loosely defined. These are opposite things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      Hmm, I see I was wrong.
downandout 7y ago
societies should tolerate everything except intolerance That is a nice ideal to strive for, but the problem is that one person’s idea of tolerance is another’s intolerance. Example: people in the Valley love to think of themselves as “tolerant”. But most outside the Valley view actions like those taken against Brendan Eich of Firefox and the firing of James Damore of Google as examples of extreme intolerance. Defenders of these actions would argue that they are defending tolerance, because the Valley viewed these people as being intolerant. Defenders of the individuals involved here would argue that these actions show the Valley is extraordinarily intolerant of any view that even slightly differs from their own. It’s a thorny issue. I absolutely detest 8chan and most of the speech on it. Most normal people would. But I also recognize their right to exist, at least in a country that holds the concept of freedom of speech in such high regard.
canada_dry 7y ago
> societies should tolerate everything except intolerance I disagree. Societies are held together by common moral standards. Intolerance of anti-social/moral behaviour (compared to the accepted standard) should be accepted, even encouraged. One of the reasons the US is falling apart at the seams is because of the 'as long as I want to do it, I should be allowed to" attitude. People don't care what others think. An extreme (of sorts) is Japanese society... if you are out of line expect that you will hear about it immediately from many people and the negative consequences of bad behaviour can be very broad and long lasting.
- jammygit 7y ago
  That sort of intolerant social pressure also led to a famously high suicide rate and a culture of workaholism that led to a word for “death by working too much” Antisocial behaviours included women going to work and homosexuality in the past btw
  - canada_dry 7y ago
    Which is why I called it 'extreme'. I'm not advocating Japan's strict societal ideology, just pointing out that Western society's "intolerance is bad" (i.e. therefore I can give "zero fucks" about my bad behaviour) is also a problem.
wisty 7y ago
Popper didn't exactly write a massive book on this. It was just a footnote in which he coined a memorable name for it. > 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. Popper argued here that we should try rational debate, but reserve the right to use force when debate has become impossible (due to intolerant people using force themselves, refusing to engage in reasonable debates, etc). The issue isn't tolerance IMO, but the self selective societies that online forums can create.
FooHentai 7y ago
>It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. I agree with most of your post, but on this particular point... "First they came for the imageboards, and I did not speak out because I did not post on imageboards. Then they came for my facebooks, and zomg how did this happen?" 8chan is just an anonymous imageboard, similar to thousands of others online currently. It happens to have the characteristic of allowing creation of new imageboards in a similar way to Reddit allowing anyone to create subreddits. This characteristic has made it one of the most popular imageboards. Much like the solution for Reddit was to shut down individual subreddits and ban particular posters, and the solution for Facebook was to close down individual groups and ban particular accounts, the solution for 8chan is to shut down individual boards and ban particular posters. >Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut in a you know it when you see it kind of way. This breaks down quickly when faced with a current example: Some folks oppose immigration of people that follow religions which espouse intolerance. Via your measure, this is justified. But many I think disagree with that stance, so how can this be resolved?
chessturk 7y ago
How do you weigh something like the burka? On one hand to reject it, you would be intolerant of hundreds of years of tradition. On the other hand, to permit it is to accept the idea that men are incapable of controlling not sexually assualting a woman and that women ought to be blamed for their own victimization. This is clearly intolerant of women being full members of society. Either way, permitting or banning the burka is intolerant. Then you arrive at that whole legal concept of reasonable discrimination, because property laws discriminate against thieves. But what is reasonable here? I'm fond of the idea of only tolerating tolerance, but how do you deal with these edge cases? If you rigidly adhere to that tolerance-uber-allis belief, how long until you end up jailing people for following ancient but intolerant traditions? How long until you end up with Chinese style muslim re-education camps? This isn't a troll, this is actually one of my own philosophical conundrums. I believe in a vacuum that people would be happier not following those ancient intolerant schemas, but I don't see that as the situation in the present day.
- emilsedgh 7y ago
  The solution to Burqa is not to make it illegal, but to educate future generations. Burqa wearing woman don't harm anyone but themselves. I don't understand how wearing Burqa is different from something like being Amish. Should we make that illegal too?
  - drevil-v2 7y ago
    > If the woman want to wear Burka, it should be within their rights. What if there are robbers targeting fuel stations and 7-11 stores or mugging people on the street, using burka's and the entire black garment to cover their intent on approach and foil any video surveillance? How many such incidents would it take before you would consider that Burka's ought to be banned in public spaces? Let's up the stakes and say the robberies were violent; how many people would have to die before you banned burkhas?
    - emilsedgh 7y ago
      Are we talking hypothetically? Because as of right now I cannot find any stats on burqa attacks in the states but people are robbing 7-11 stores every day without burqa anyways.
smsm42 7y ago
> should tolerate everything except intolerance By which definition the first person crying "intolerance!" wins - now they can be intolerant for free, because they are just intolerating intolerance, but their opponents can't be. I don't think such model can be defined as "drawing a fine line" - more like providing a rich field for rhetorical abuse, as long as you can excuse your own intolerance by casting whoever you target as "intolerant" you yourself get a free pass for anything. Very convenient, of course, but to me it looks like a cheap trick.
- colordrops 7y ago
  Thank you, I thought I was taking crazy pills until I encountered your sane comment in this maelstrom of illogic.
naasking 7y ago
> Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. This is incorrect. Popper does not say intolerance should not be permitted, he said that we should not extend unlimited tolerance, and he expands by saying that only intolerance that cannot be countered by rational debate should be impermissible. Clearly escalation to violence is a form of intolerance that cannot be countered by rational debate but it's not clear at all what else should fall under this criteria. This is clearly a very different claim that does not support your narrative, and instead, shows how your view is just another form of intolerance that we should oppose.
BrendanEich 7y ago
This misrepresents Popper. https://twitter.com/HMMvandenElzen/status/899506513177391104?s=20 https://twitter.com/HMMvandenElzen/status/899506513177391104... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

oarabbus_ 7y ago

You make some great points. Let me also ask you a devil's advocate question. "Let's go to oarabbus_'s house at <DOXXED ADDRESS> and kill him" is not protected speech, correct? I am sure everyone agrees upon this. But "Let's attack folks who are <oarabbus_'s ethnicity> as they are a scourge upon our nation" is protected? Why?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TacticalTable 7y ago
That is not protected speech. The 'attack' is the keyword. Therefore, supremacist groups typically say "<oarabbus_'s ethnicity> is destroying <oarabbus_'s country of residence>" which is legal. They're just connecting the dots the only way they know how.
- rjf72 7y ago
  Yes, it is. The nuance he was intentionally illustrating is the basis of our entire law. The one key exception to freedom of speech is speech that will, with high certainty, provoke "imminent lawless action." And this is something that is interpreted in the most literal and conservative fashion possible. In his former statement he has a specific target, time, and location. It is extremely likely that his behavior will result in imminent unlawful action. By contrast condemning a large group lacks any specificity and is, in and of itself, not likely to suddenly drive any specific unlawful action.
  - afiori 7y ago
    Obviously the only relevant opinion is that of a judge, but... nope. I would say 'Let's kill <ethnicity>' as a standalone statement is illegal in every western country.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - rjf72 7y ago
      Issues similar to this have been brought up in the courts many times, and they almost invariably (sexual obscenity is one exception) yield lopsided results in favor of the 'offender.' One random recent case is Elonis vs the United States [1]. Elonis made statements online suggesting a desire to kill his estranged wife, later on kindergarten children, and then after that an FBI agent that had visited him in relation to the threat against children. He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. As an aside the links on the scotusblog are extremely high quality and provide lots of plain language analysis of the technical points. A phenomenal resource for any case or issue you're ever interested in learning about the legal nuances behind. For instance this [2] is their coverage of the 'gay cake' case. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-... [2] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
      - afiori 7y ago
        > He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. In this context it was not indeed a standalone statement. from the wikipedia page indeed his statements are quite general and in a sense artistic. He did not argue for killing his ex-wife, there is no reading where he could encourage others to kill his ex-wife. He really had a wish for it and was talking about it. From what is reported in the wikipedia article even something like "I think it is a good idea to kill my ex-wife" would have been too much.
8ytecoder 7y ago
Not a lawyer. But I don’t think it’s protected when it’s said with such specificity. “I hate ethnicity <X>” is probably protected.
- throwawayor624 7y ago
  Not a lawyer either, but it's formally called The Brandenburg Test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'"
  - throwanem 7y ago
    One would want strong evidence for such a likelihood, of course. Evidence such as, for example, it having already done so three times before.
    - blockmarker 7y ago
      Steve Scalise's assassination was attempted by a radical anti-Trumper, Antifa has cracked open skills and sent people to the hospital. We have strong evidence that anti-Trump Facebook groups and subreddits cause real-world violence.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
taurath 7y ago
“Let’s attack” is generally the indicator here, and where we draw the line both morally and functionally. For example - there’s been very few partisan attacks on democrats despite the absolutely virulent “they’re destroying the country” speech from every conservative news sphere (and vice versa). Pundits have learned to walk that line because that has been the line that actual violence starts. 8chan has no filter or moderation on that. We see the results.
heyyyouu 7y ago
The exception in this standard is for "likely" and "imminent" violence. There are also exceptions for the commission of a crime, but then the crime has to be committed, and thus the intent. Episode 8 of the "Make No Law" First Amendment podcast has an excellent explanation of the difference between the two. That episode is a Q&A and covers other great topics as well. The entire podcast is excellent if you want a good, baseline understand on the exceptions to US first amendment law and why/how they are so narrowly defined.
lr4444lr 7y ago
It's not: you are planning direct violence in a clear, present, and imminent context.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

Then it turns into a game (game theory, not Risk) of whom defines "intolerance". And once duly defined, it is now verboten and removed from discussion and vernacular. Hot button topics: capitalism, abortion, religion, right vs left, states rights I think the founders had it better: govt can't censor speech, so the individuals and the public could decide. Just, the framers didn't imagine companies of such scope.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

weberc2 7y ago

I’m not familiar with Popper’s work, but I see that quote (“tolerate everything but intolerance”) used to rationalize intolerance toward perfectly tolerant individuals. Any evidence that the target is “intolerant” suffices, no matter how tenuous or contrived (“an intolerant person once said a good thing about <target> therefore <target> is intolerant). This seems similar to the concern you expressed about the GP’s philosophy. Did Popper lay out more stringent criteria for what constitutes “tolerance” and “intolerance”?

irrational 7y ago

>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.

newhaus1994 7y ago
The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.
- irrational 7y ago
  So, the gay couple coming to the baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding are the intolerant ones because they are the first intolerant action in the chain? Because you know that will be how it will be spun.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Congratulations on the apt handle. Your argument is irrational because it ignores the fact that the baker committed the first intolerant act in the chain, not the gay couple.
    - educationdata 7y ago
      So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
      - DonHopkins 7y ago
        Absolutely: refusing to provide service to gays, when you provide the same services to other people just because they are not gay, is indeed literally intolerant, without your scare-quotes or any other qualification. What's so hard for you to understand about that? If you're trying to argue for some slippery weaselly nuanced non-standard definition of "intolerant" which excludes bigoted bakers that you just pulled out of your butt, remember that it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and also excuses gay couples for not tolerating homophobic bakers. It's not my responsibility to provide you with the standard definitions of common English words, when you're obviously capable of googling them yourself, and obviously misunderstanding them on purpose, and obviously not arguing in good faith. Look it up on Wikipedia yourself.

rjf72 7y ago

Popper's quote is often quite misconstrued. Here it is, in context: "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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." He is specifically framing the issue as one where an ideology goes outside of the realm of debate and on to violence. So for instance an ideology that says 'attack migrants' is obviously something that should be suppressed because these people have skipped the whole debate step and instead appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner. But, by contrast, an ideology that argues for reasons why unchecked migration may be unhealthy for a society and lobbies for according change is something some may consider intolerant, but is quite obviously not what he was referring to. On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.

novaleaf 7y ago
thank you so much for putting the Popper quote here. This is the first I have heard of it, but it sounds very reasonable.
- makomk 7y ago
  Superficially, it does sound quite reasonable. The problem is that the quote itself is a call for people to abandon rational debate and use violence, not just against targets who have themselves eschewed debate for violence but against "any movement preaching intolerance". Whilst his justification is that those movements might themselves eschew debate for violence, he very specifically does not restrict this to movements which have done so or even threatened to do so. So for instance, Poppler's paradox is easily used to justify violent intolerance of anyone who opposes unchecked immigration. Not only are they preaching intolerance, but people with very similar-sounding views are actually violently attacking immigrants so it's easy to justify the claim that those ones might as well.

tripplethrendo 7y ago

What about Islamic intolerance?

laughinghan 7y ago
Is it your understanding that 100% of the followers of Islam are intolerant? There has never been a single person who identifies as Islamic who has been tolerant?
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't reply to egregious comments (a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls). This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Instead, flag the comment by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (There's a small karma threshold before flag links appear.)

Alex3917 7y ago

> It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis that they didn't have enough revenue, didn't own enough land, couldn't read and write well enough, etc. Democracy was basically conceived of as a pen-and-paper version of blockchain, where the goal was to create a balance between private property rights and the redistribution of wealth. Allowing people without proof-of-stake to vote wouldn't have made any sense in the beginning given that no one had any idea how the system would work. Keep in mind that the government was basically distributing free property to people as fast as possible so that more people could vote, and only stopped doing that once the country ran out of land. Even today, most people wouldn't want to live in a system where millions of people could just show up for vacation for a couple days, vote to give themselves ownership of all the country's assets, and then leave.

belorn 7y ago

I have a simplistic test when it comes to hate. I take the part of the message that identity the target and I change it to the opposite side of the political spectrum. If the comment/speech still sound like hate then it is hate. Thus my definition for intolerance is intolerance when it is independent of the reader/authors opinion about the target. A lot of people disprove of this approach, arguing that by doing so we ignore the oppressed or helping the oppressors, and thus we end up with different view about intolerance.

lr4444lr 7y ago
They're not disproving your approach: they're admitting tacitly that they have no moral compass in these matters apart from "evening up the score".

kriro 7y ago

I would also argue that asking for some minimum level of education/sophistication like the parent poster might qualify as the type of Platonic elitism which Popper was very much opposed to (The Open Society and its Enemies). But then again defining what qualifies as tolerance also has the potential problem Platonic elitism (i.e. who sets the criteria). It's a pretty tough job to balance freedom of speech and prevent hatebreeding at the same time. There are many philosophical approaches but I'd say that I haven't found one that satisfies me. Currently I'm leaning towards allowing everything in the hope that rationality will win out. At the end of the day I think it's simply a very tough topic with no clear cut answer.

raxxorrax 7y ago
Very true. He also said that suppression of intolerant ideology is unwise as long as public opinion counters it. 8chan isn't really the center of public opinion. There were third parties that pointed their fingers to those losers on these boards and now some people lashed out. I don't want to blame anyone besides the murder, but that is the game that is being played. Being opposed to nazisim wasn't exactly rocket science some years ago, so I don't really can get behind comments pointing to the need for education and that the lack of the latter is reason enough to curb speech.

Sawamara 7y ago

Exactly. Its very hard to claim that one is just putting stuff out on "the marketplace of ideas", when in reality, losing ground to an ideology that places people who have non-majority skin color, sexuality or religious views (or lack thereof) below the majority is simply dangerous to any minority, and should not be allowed to fester. This is not just about ideas, its about refusing others the full rights of personhood. And that should not stand in any ethical society.

colordrops 7y ago
What you speak of is one way of administering a society, but it certainly isn't anything close to free speech.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

Why should people tolerate things which they don't think it's in their interest to tolerate? If, for example, people believe it's harmful to their children to see people performing sexual acts in the street, why should they tolerate that behavior?

Brain_Thief 7y ago
Are you aware of anyone in this thread, or of any major national movement, advocating for a tolerance-based right to perform sexual acts in public in front of children? Looking past the strange and extreme strawman you've propped up, the reasons for tolerance in society are multitudinous. It prevents misunderstanding, fear, and hatred from festering and potentially giving rise to violence. As a simple thought experiment ask yourself the following question. How many individuals hailing from tolerant communities or organizations have you seen commit mass shootings? Contrast that to the number of individuals committing public violence who hold intolerance as a virtue. Public violence is a serious negative for everyone and its prevention should be reason enough to support tolerance as a basic tenet of societal health. The fact of the matter, no matter who might dislike it, is that modern societies are, for the most part, very diverse. Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world. What makes you think that violence is not a foregone conclusion if you start prohibiting people from expressing their genuinely held political beliefs or advocating for what they see as their interests?
  - Brain_Thief 7y ago
    I encourage you to look twice at your question - I believe that, under close scrutiny, you will see that it contains its own answer. No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public (unless you want to count the multitudes of minority voters who are regularly removed from voting rolls by GOP lawmakers or subjected to onerous identification requirements and other intimidation tactics...). If a person's "genuinely-held political beliefs" involve racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and if said person "genuinely believes" that the appropriate way to exert their opinion upon society is to discriminate against the people they hate or even inflict violence upon them, then they are crossing a line established by our societal norms and threatening the stability of society itself. If a person's genuinely held political beliefs lead them to enact discrimination or violence upon others then they have placed themselves outside of society and are by definition not valid input sources for determining societal norms and laws.

jredwards 7y ago

> clearcut in a you know it when you see it kind of way. "clearcut" and "you know it when you see it" seem like polar opposite concepts to me.

pritambaral 7y ago
If you know something the very moment you see it, then that fact is "clear" to you. That is the general meaning of "clearcut".
- mtmickush 7y ago
  Clearcut is something that is easily / sharply defined. If you only know something when you see it then that thing is by its very nature not easily defined / loosely defined. These are opposite things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    Hmm, I see I was wrong.

downandout 7y ago

societies should tolerate everything except intolerance That is a nice ideal to strive for, but the problem is that one person’s idea of tolerance is another’s intolerance. Example: people in the Valley love to think of themselves as “tolerant”. But most outside the Valley view actions like those taken against Brendan Eich of Firefox and the firing of James Damore of Google as examples of extreme intolerance. Defenders of these actions would argue that they are defending tolerance, because the Valley viewed these people as being intolerant. Defenders of the individuals involved here would argue that these actions show the Valley is extraordinarily intolerant of any view that even slightly differs from their own. It’s a thorny issue. I absolutely detest 8chan and most of the speech on it. Most normal people would. But I also recognize their right to exist, at least in a country that holds the concept of freedom of speech in such high regard.

canada_dry 7y ago

> societies should tolerate everything except intolerance I disagree. Societies are held together by common moral standards. Intolerance of anti-social/moral behaviour (compared to the accepted standard) should be accepted, even encouraged. One of the reasons the US is falling apart at the seams is because of the 'as long as I want to do it, I should be allowed to" attitude. People don't care what others think. An extreme (of sorts) is Japanese society... if you are out of line expect that you will hear about it immediately from many people and the negative consequences of bad behaviour can be very broad and long lasting.

jammygit 7y ago
That sort of intolerant social pressure also led to a famously high suicide rate and a culture of workaholism that led to a word for “death by working too much” Antisocial behaviours included women going to work and homosexuality in the past btw
- canada_dry 7y ago
  Which is why I called it 'extreme'. I'm not advocating Japan's strict societal ideology, just pointing out that Western society's "intolerance is bad" (i.e. therefore I can give "zero fucks" about my bad behaviour) is also a problem.

wisty 7y ago

Popper didn't exactly write a massive book on this. It was just a footnote in which he coined a memorable name for it. > 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. Popper argued here that we should try rational debate, but reserve the right to use force when debate has become impossible (due to intolerant people using force themselves, refusing to engage in reasonable debates, etc). The issue isn't tolerance IMO, but the self selective societies that online forums can create.

FooHentai 7y ago

>It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. I agree with most of your post, but on this particular point... "First they came for the imageboards, and I did not speak out because I did not post on imageboards. Then they came for my facebooks, and zomg how did this happen?" 8chan is just an anonymous imageboard, similar to thousands of others online currently. It happens to have the characteristic of allowing creation of new imageboards in a similar way to Reddit allowing anyone to create subreddits. This characteristic has made it one of the most popular imageboards. Much like the solution for Reddit was to shut down individual subreddits and ban particular posters, and the solution for Facebook was to close down individual groups and ban particular accounts, the solution for 8chan is to shut down individual boards and ban particular posters. >Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut in a you know it when you see it kind of way. This breaks down quickly when faced with a current example: Some folks oppose immigration of people that follow religions which espouse intolerance. Via your measure, this is justified. But many I think disagree with that stance, so how can this be resolved?

chessturk 7y ago

How do you weigh something like the burka? On one hand to reject it, you would be intolerant of hundreds of years of tradition. On the other hand, to permit it is to accept the idea that men are incapable of controlling not sexually assualting a woman and that women ought to be blamed for their own victimization. This is clearly intolerant of women being full members of society. Either way, permitting or banning the burka is intolerant. Then you arrive at that whole legal concept of reasonable discrimination, because property laws discriminate against thieves. But what is reasonable here? I'm fond of the idea of only tolerating tolerance, but how do you deal with these edge cases? If you rigidly adhere to that tolerance-uber-allis belief, how long until you end up jailing people for following ancient but intolerant traditions? How long until you end up with Chinese style muslim re-education camps? This isn't a troll, this is actually one of my own philosophical conundrums. I believe in a vacuum that people would be happier not following those ancient intolerant schemas, but I don't see that as the situation in the present day.

emilsedgh 7y ago
The solution to Burqa is not to make it illegal, but to educate future generations. Burqa wearing woman don't harm anyone but themselves. I don't understand how wearing Burqa is different from something like being Amish. Should we make that illegal too?
- drevil-v2 7y ago
  > If the woman want to wear Burka, it should be within their rights. What if there are robbers targeting fuel stations and 7-11 stores or mugging people on the street, using burka's and the entire black garment to cover their intent on approach and foil any video surveillance? How many such incidents would it take before you would consider that Burka's ought to be banned in public spaces? Let's up the stakes and say the robberies were violent; how many people would have to die before you banned burkhas?
  - emilsedgh 7y ago
    Are we talking hypothetically? Because as of right now I cannot find any stats on burqa attacks in the states but people are robbing 7-11 stores every day without burqa anyways.

smsm42 7y ago

> should tolerate everything except intolerance By which definition the first person crying "intolerance!" wins - now they can be intolerant for free, because they are just intolerating intolerance, but their opponents can't be. I don't think such model can be defined as "drawing a fine line" - more like providing a rich field for rhetorical abuse, as long as you can excuse your own intolerance by casting whoever you target as "intolerant" you yourself get a free pass for anything. Very convenient, of course, but to me it looks like a cheap trick.

colordrops 7y ago
Thank you, I thought I was taking crazy pills until I encountered your sane comment in this maelstrom of illogic.

naasking 7y ago

> Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. This is incorrect. Popper does not say intolerance should not be permitted, he said that we should not extend unlimited tolerance, and he expands by saying that only intolerance that cannot be countered by rational debate should be impermissible. Clearly escalation to violence is a form of intolerance that cannot be countered by rational debate but it's not clear at all what else should fall under this criteria. This is clearly a very different claim that does not support your narrative, and instead, shows how your view is just another form of intolerance that we should oppose.

BrendanEich 7y ago

This misrepresents Popper. https://twitter.com/HMMvandenElzen/status/899506513177391104?s=20 https://twitter.com/HMMvandenElzen/status/899506513177391104... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance