10 ms·

> 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 w

by kaens 7y ago

> 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. - Karl Popper, Open Society and it's Enemies, 1945

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress. Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens.
- Jarwain 7y ago
  I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote > 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 The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. That in and of itself is a belief, but it is a belief that can be discussed through rational argument, and only calls upon violence when all else fails.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    1. That line would still be hard to draw 2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized. While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of doing that, simply because moral issues are some of the most complicated questions in the world. We would never achieve a consensus about the underlying tolerance/intolerance of ideologies, because if we could do that, we would have already done it and we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      > 1. That line would still be hard to draw Perhaps I'm unusually gifted, but I find the line between violence and non violence quite easy to raw. One of the easiest of all lines, really.
      - username90 7y ago
        Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent. If you think that it is wrong to do that then you are on the pacifists side and not the "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance" side.
        slfnflctd 7y ago
        > Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent Incorrect.
        username90 7y ago
        Stop spreading lies, exact quote: "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" Important part: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force" And there was no mention that the group were violent, just that they refused to listen. He mentioned that the group might get violent in the future not that they are, so we must strike them down preemptively.
- rjblackman 7y ago
  > Who is going to define that line? It will be defined through rational argument.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    While one would hope that, all evidence points to the line being decided by those who control or can put pressure on The Platforms.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- blub 7y ago
  How can fighting intolerance "suppress things the mob does not agree with", if that is in itself intolerance? The whole point is to allow different ideas to exist.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    Look at the history of censorship and look at the current state of affairs. 9 out of 10 times, censorship is just a tool used to suppress things that the one in charge (a person, institution, or 'mob') doesn't like, while that same censor holds ideas equally or more intolerant than the suppressed ones. I don't want to go into specific examples, because otherwise this thread will devolve into a discussion about those specific issues. But look around and try to analyze things impartially.
- Gormisdomai 7y ago
  > Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens. I don't think this is true. The person in power can be wrong (e.g.) 10% of the time and you'd still have a mostly stable and tolerant system.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. It's simpler to see if you apply the Paradox recursively. There's a reason for an exception to tolerance. It's made only in case of people who directly want to get rid of other members of society. Society needs to get rid of them first. But if, in your quest of chasing out the intolerant, you extend the meaning of intolerance to anything beyond immediate threats to people, or if you start claiming collateral damage, then you are the intolerant that the society needs to get rid of ASAP. The groups currently wielding the Paradox as justification for their actions? If they actually believed in it, they'd dissolve.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. So, Popper's idea is basically a way for a minority who "knows best" to impose their will by force upon the "intolerant" majority (which they term "masses" or "mobs"). In might prevent Nazi-style harm (where the masses were pro Hitler), but it's a recipe for USSR-style harm (where the party knew better and lorded over the masses, "for their good", and protesters were labelled "a mob")...
armenarmen 7y ago
“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.” ― Frank Herbert, Children of Dune
eebynight 7y ago
Every time this topic comes up someone posts this Popper argument. The problem, in my opinion, with this argument is that it is spoken from a position of moral superiority. When deciding whether to surpress an idea by force, who is making that decision? Why is that person or group correct about the matter? My major issue is that the people using this argument are usually so adamant about an idea they can’t see any flaws in their reasoning and believe they are correct without a doubt. Can no one think of a time in the past when the “right” move to surpress or perpetuate an idea ended up being something that was regretted in the future? Can you be sure that the decision you are making now will be looked back on favorably? On one side of this argument, I can imagine this being a solid strategy to prevent another Nazi Germany style idea from taking over. However, on the other hand, I see this being used to conveniently sweep ideas under the rug that are not favorable, but may not be as dangerous as they are made out to be (think Fahrenheit 451 or 1984). So to summarize, I don’t think people should just drop this argument and call it a day. I’d love to see more discussion rather than ad hominem attacks. /rant
- rjblackman 7y ago
  the decision will be made through rational argument. if you are not willing to debate or argue then your position is forfeit (I.E. you are the one with the intolerant philosophy).
  - gruez 7y ago
    >the decision will be made through rational argument and what do you do when both sides are at an impasse because they have different axioms?
    - rjblackman 7y ago
      then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.
      - 7y ago
knzhou 7y ago
That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kaens 7y ago
  > Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. This is 100% not true.
  - dlivingston 7y ago
    You’ve made an assertion that it is not true - in fact, a very strong assertion. Do you have any argument to back that up?
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      The essence of any organised belief system, religious or otherwise, is that some behaviours are virtuous and some are not to be tolerated, the nature of this intolerance may range from scolding to ostracism to execution. Is is this latter thing that is the only variable.
    - kaens 7y ago
      I know people who do not view themselves as fundamentally tolerant people. Further, I know people who consider intolerance as a core part of human nature, who would be prefixing their arguments with "everybody knows they are fundamentally intolerant". People who think tolerance is a fake position that people lie to themselves about purely to avoid violence or "ugly truths". The existence of people like this isn't a position to be taken that needs backing by argument.
- jonahx 7y ago
danShumway 7y ago
The Paradox of Tolerance is just a rephrasing of the Paradox of Pacifism. I'm not convinced it brings anything ideologically new to the table. I'm not a pacifist, and by extension, I don't believe we should tolerate everything. I agree with Karl. But I still get very suspicious of people who bring this quote up, because they're arguing about something very basic that pretty much everybody already knows, and they're not answering the more important question: which things should we violently oppose, and how should we oppose them? Most people already don't believe that we should tolerate 100% of literally everything, and the people who do are not going to be convinced by an argument they've already heard 1,000 times. I promise that pacifists already know how sometimes violent people kill pacifists. Advocates for universal tolerance already know that their philosophy can be abused. This argument was around for thousands of years, even before Karl Popper was born. So ignoring the pacifists that will all just roll their eyes when they hear this quote, and assuming that someone isn't a pacifist (ie, the vast majority of people) the more useful followup questions are: - How do we define the intolerant? Is it literally people who fight against tolerance, or is it about causing harm, intentionally or incidentally? - Is (in)tolerance fungible? If someone tolerates an intolerant person, should they be treated like a similar liability? How many degrees of fungibility should we go down? - How long should we wait before we decide that suppression is necessary? Is it justifiable for us to preemptively suppress a community that is likely to become violent in the future? - What means are acceptable during suppression of intolerant ideas? Are there lines we can't cross? Are we forbidden from using stuff like propaganda? There are tons of smart people who have smart, interesting takes on those questions. And if you go through history or even current-day events and look at different communities, you'll find that they all kind of come up with their own answers. So when people pull out this quote, it's like walking up to two people debating whether we should ever assassinate a dictator and saying, "sometimes wars are justified." Well, yeah, but we knew that. Is this particular war justified?
- jonahx 7y ago
  > because they're arguing about something very basic that pretty much everybody already knows One would think... Unfortunately, many people believe that all intolerance stems from bad treatment of some kind, and that the intolerant can be swayed, eventually, given enough tolerance.
austincheney 7y ago
Tolerance is acceptance or appreciation of difference or disagreement with the intent to make peace or extend understanding. That word is often abused by ignorant, stupid, or self-serving narcissistic people to mean something more like conformity or agreement. In this context tolerance becomes an empty meaningless word used as a weapon to attack people with, which is the opposite of its intention. This best description of this internalizing self-serving behavior is hypocrisy. Whether its because such people are dishonest or are simply stupid I despise these people. I would respect these silly people much more if they simply used just words correctly in acceptance of a self-serving nature.
golemotron 7y ago
Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is not falsifiable.
- ggm 7y ago
  Are you saying only falsifiable things are tenable? Axioms (which it is not) are also unfalsifyable. If you change axioms you're in a different system. Or if you don't like axioms, principles. Paradoxes are by design, not falsifying?
- hydrox24 7y ago
  Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is an investigation of moral axioms, or principles. It is not Science. So it's okay that it can't be falsified.
tus88 7y ago
Who would have thought a Communist would say something like that. /s
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
buboard 7y ago
intolerance guarantees stagnation. tolerance has more optionality
throw1747hhd 7y ago
This is quite amusing in the context of the article. 'Rationality' a word which is entirely without meaning, riding on the wave of supposed European 'enlightenment', is little more than first order logic with all it's fundamental assumptions being b based, either on European secularism or Christianity. The suppression of thought comes about not because of the lack of 'rationality' but from the lack of agreement on fundamental dogmas. For instance how are going to argue with a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist for whom the very existence of others is a prickly aspect; this being served entirely from the scripture ?
coldtea 7y ago
And who judges what is intolerant, and should therefore be suppressed ("by force", none the less), over simply what those who yield the power don't like, or the ideological fashions of the "good people" of the times don't like?
toasterlovin 7y ago
The problem with Popper’s proposal that intolerant ideologies must not be tolerated is that it fails Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance test. If you really think that intolerant ideologies must not be tolerated, then you should feel comfortable about your political enemies being the ones who determine what constitutes an intolerant ideology. If you feel that things would not go well, then perhaps the idea that we should be able to persecute ideologies which are “intolerant” is bad and we shouldn’t give that power to anyone.

by kaens 7y ago

lone_haxx0r 7y ago

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress. Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens.

Jarwain 7y ago
I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote > 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 The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. That in and of itself is a belief, but it is a belief that can be discussed through rational argument, and only calls upon violence when all else fails.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  1. That line would still be hard to draw 2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized. While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of doing that, simply because moral issues are some of the most complicated questions in the world. We would never achieve a consensus about the underlying tolerance/intolerance of ideologies, because if we could do that, we would have already done it and we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    > 1. That line would still be hard to draw Perhaps I'm unusually gifted, but I find the line between violence and non violence quite easy to raw. One of the easiest of all lines, really.
    - username90 7y ago
      Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent. If you think that it is wrong to do that then you are on the pacifists side and not the "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance" side.
      - slfnflctd 7y ago
        > Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent Incorrect.
        username90 7y ago
        Stop spreading lies, exact quote: "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" Important part: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force" And there was no mention that the group were violent, just that they refused to listen. He mentioned that the group might get violent in the future not that they are, so we must strike them down preemptively.
rjblackman 7y ago
> Who is going to define that line? It will be defined through rational argument.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  While one would hope that, all evidence points to the line being decided by those who control or can put pressure on The Platforms.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blub 7y ago
How can fighting intolerance "suppress things the mob does not agree with", if that is in itself intolerance? The whole point is to allow different ideas to exist.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  Look at the history of censorship and look at the current state of affairs. 9 out of 10 times, censorship is just a tool used to suppress things that the one in charge (a person, institution, or 'mob') doesn't like, while that same censor holds ideas equally or more intolerant than the suppressed ones. I don't want to go into specific examples, because otherwise this thread will devolve into a discussion about those specific issues. But look around and try to analyze things impartially.
Gormisdomai 7y ago
> Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens. I don't think this is true. The person in power can be wrong (e.g.) 10% of the time and you'd still have a mostly stable and tolerant system.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. It's simpler to see if you apply the Paradox recursively. There's a reason for an exception to tolerance. It's made only in case of people who directly want to get rid of other members of society. Society needs to get rid of them first. But if, in your quest of chasing out the intolerant, you extend the meaning of intolerance to anything beyond immediate threats to people, or if you start claiming collateral damage, then you are the intolerant that the society needs to get rid of ASAP. The groups currently wielding the Paradox as justification for their actions? If they actually believed in it, they'd dissolve.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. So, Popper's idea is basically a way for a minority who "knows best" to impose their will by force upon the "intolerant" majority (which they term "masses" or "mobs"). In might prevent Nazi-style harm (where the masses were pro Hitler), but it's a recipe for USSR-style harm (where the party knew better and lorded over the masses, "for their good", and protesters were labelled "a mob")...

armenarmen 7y ago

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.” ― Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

eebynight 7y ago

Every time this topic comes up someone posts this Popper argument. The problem, in my opinion, with this argument is that it is spoken from a position of moral superiority. When deciding whether to surpress an idea by force, who is making that decision? Why is that person or group correct about the matter? My major issue is that the people using this argument are usually so adamant about an idea they can’t see any flaws in their reasoning and believe they are correct without a doubt. Can no one think of a time in the past when the “right” move to surpress or perpetuate an idea ended up being something that was regretted in the future? Can you be sure that the decision you are making now will be looked back on favorably? On one side of this argument, I can imagine this being a solid strategy to prevent another Nazi Germany style idea from taking over. However, on the other hand, I see this being used to conveniently sweep ideas under the rug that are not favorable, but may not be as dangerous as they are made out to be (think Fahrenheit 451 or 1984). So to summarize, I don’t think people should just drop this argument and call it a day. I’d love to see more discussion rather than ad hominem attacks. /rant

rjblackman 7y ago
the decision will be made through rational argument. if you are not willing to debate or argue then your position is forfeit (I.E. you are the one with the intolerant philosophy).
- gruez 7y ago
  >the decision will be made through rational argument and what do you do when both sides are at an impasse because they have different axioms?
  - rjblackman 7y ago
    then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.
    - 7y ago

knzhou 7y ago

That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kaens 7y ago
> Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. This is 100% not true.
- dlivingston 7y ago
  You’ve made an assertion that it is not true - in fact, a very strong assertion. Do you have any argument to back that up?
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    The essence of any organised belief system, religious or otherwise, is that some behaviours are virtuous and some are not to be tolerated, the nature of this intolerance may range from scolding to ostracism to execution. Is is this latter thing that is the only variable.
  - kaens 7y ago
    I know people who do not view themselves as fundamentally tolerant people. Further, I know people who consider intolerance as a core part of human nature, who would be prefixing their arguments with "everybody knows they are fundamentally intolerant". People who think tolerance is a fake position that people lie to themselves about purely to avoid violence or "ugly truths". The existence of people like this isn't a position to be taken that needs backing by argument.
jonahx 7y ago

danShumway 7y ago

The Paradox of Tolerance is just a rephrasing of the Paradox of Pacifism. I'm not convinced it brings anything ideologically new to the table. I'm not a pacifist, and by extension, I don't believe we should tolerate everything. I agree with Karl. But I still get very suspicious of people who bring this quote up, because they're arguing about something very basic that pretty much everybody already knows, and they're not answering the more important question: which things should we violently oppose, and how should we oppose them? Most people already don't believe that we should tolerate 100% of literally everything, and the people who do are not going to be convinced by an argument they've already heard 1,000 times. I promise that pacifists already know how sometimes violent people kill pacifists. Advocates for universal tolerance already know that their philosophy can be abused. This argument was around for thousands of years, even before Karl Popper was born. So ignoring the pacifists that will all just roll their eyes when they hear this quote, and assuming that someone isn't a pacifist (ie, the vast majority of people) the more useful followup questions are: - How do we define the intolerant? Is it literally people who fight against tolerance, or is it about causing harm, intentionally or incidentally? - Is (in)tolerance fungible? If someone tolerates an intolerant person, should they be treated like a similar liability? How many degrees of fungibility should we go down? - How long should we wait before we decide that suppression is necessary? Is it justifiable for us to preemptively suppress a community that is likely to become violent in the future? - What means are acceptable during suppression of intolerant ideas? Are there lines we can't cross? Are we forbidden from using stuff like propaganda? There are tons of smart people who have smart, interesting takes on those questions. And if you go through history or even current-day events and look at different communities, you'll find that they all kind of come up with their own answers. So when people pull out this quote, it's like walking up to two people debating whether we should ever assassinate a dictator and saying, "sometimes wars are justified." Well, yeah, but we knew that. Is this particular war justified?

jonahx 7y ago
> because they're arguing about something very basic that pretty much everybody already knows One would think... Unfortunately, many people believe that all intolerance stems from bad treatment of some kind, and that the intolerant can be swayed, eventually, given enough tolerance.

austincheney 7y ago

Tolerance is acceptance or appreciation of difference or disagreement with the intent to make peace or extend understanding. That word is often abused by ignorant, stupid, or self-serving narcissistic people to mean something more like conformity or agreement. In this context tolerance becomes an empty meaningless word used as a weapon to attack people with, which is the opposite of its intention. This best description of this internalizing self-serving behavior is hypocrisy. Whether its because such people are dishonest or are simply stupid I despise these people. I would respect these silly people much more if they simply used just words correctly in acceptance of a self-serving nature.

golemotron 7y ago

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is not falsifiable.

ggm 7y ago
Are you saying only falsifiable things are tenable? Axioms (which it is not) are also unfalsifyable. If you change axioms you're in a different system. Or if you don't like axioms, principles. Paradoxes are by design, not falsifying?
hydrox24 7y ago
Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is an investigation of moral axioms, or principles. It is not Science. So it's okay that it can't be falsified.

tus88 7y ago

Who would have thought a Communist would say something like that. /s

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

buboard 7y ago

intolerance guarantees stagnation. tolerance has more optionality

throw1747hhd 7y ago

This is quite amusing in the context of the article. 'Rationality' a word which is entirely without meaning, riding on the wave of supposed European 'enlightenment', is little more than first order logic with all it's fundamental assumptions being b based, either on European secularism or Christianity. The suppression of thought comes about not because of the lack of 'rationality' but from the lack of agreement on fundamental dogmas. For instance how are going to argue with a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist for whom the very existence of others is a prickly aspect; this being served entirely from the scripture ?

coldtea 7y ago

And who judges what is intolerant, and should therefore be suppressed ("by force", none the less), over simply what those who yield the power don't like, or the ideological fashions of the "good people" of the times don't like?

toasterlovin 7y ago

The problem with Popper’s proposal that intolerant ideologies must not be tolerated is that it fails Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance test. If you really think that intolerant ideologies must not be tolerated, then you should feel comfortable about your political enemies being the ones who determine what constitutes an intolerant ideology. If you feel that things would not go well, then perhaps the idea that we should be able to persecute ideologies which are “intolerant” is bad and we shouldn’t give that power to anyone.