3 ms·

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance relevant here? Also, if you ask for (legal) spaces for

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance relevant here? Also, if you ask for (legal) spaces for "anything goes" content, you need to campaign not just against "hate speech" laws, but all the other laws that prohibit various kinds of information.

samatman 7y ago
Maybe, but probably not. I encourage people to read the full Karl Popper quote, which contains this: 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. The claim isn't that we should denounce those who hold opinions we find abhorrent as intolerant and fail to tolerate them; it's more specific than that, it says that we may need to physically fight those whose 'opinions' are backed by force or the credible threat of it. I don't think vile, anonymous Internet racists rise to this measure. Your mileage may vary. Most of the Interneterati who invoke the paradox of tolerance are saying that, e.g., being intolerant of the LGBTQ, or racially chauvinist, or less than enthusiastically feminist, is grounds for censorship and deplatforming. I don't agree, and don't get the impression Karl Popper would either.
- incompatible 7y ago
  I'm not sure at what level the tolerance would end: if there's a group on the Internet which occasionally launches or encourages random acts of violence such as beating up LGBTQ people or a bombing or truck attack, does it deserve to be left in peace? Should only the people who commit the real-world violence be suppressed, and site itself left alone to prepare the next attack? Or does a group need to rise to the level of outright rebellion, like ISIS creating its own state in the Middle East, before it needs to be shut down?
  - samatman 7y ago
    I'm not a big believer in collective guilt. If someone hangs out and shitposts on a marginal forum, what is the responsibility of the other people on that forum for their criminal actions? If they're co-conspirators, that's one thing, but making shitty memes and shooting up a synagogue are very different things. I've noticed that every single one of the recent mass murderers from the white supremacist camp has a Facebook account, but no one seems to want to shut down Facebook, just 8chan or whatever. You mentioned truck attacks; someone recently drove a van through a tent full of people canvassing for Trump in Florida. Do we deplatform wherever he was hanging out online, or is it just the combination of "did a terrible thing" and "has opinions that we don't like" that justifies censorship? I don't know what the line is, exactly, only that a lot of people are really eager to draw it way before the point I'm prepared to.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >You mentioned truck attacks; someone recently drove a van through a tent full of people canvassing for Trump in Florida. Do we deplatform wherever he was hanging out online, or is it just the combination of "did a terrible thing" and "has opinions that we don't like" that justifies censorship? This would make the paradox of tolerance laughably restricted - it would require that we think only on the level of individual action, and that there would need to be nothing short of completely unanimous support for an action. This misses out on the idea of stochastic terrorism. From another angle, let's say there were a society of Nazis in the real world. Most, but not all of the group argue that the Jews should be murdered. One of the group murders a Jew. By your metric, we would only be allowed to revoke tolerance of the group if every member murders a Jew. Isn't that a very high price to pay? Would we only be justified in revoking tolerance from a child porn forum if every member has abused a child?
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >it says that we may need to physically fight those whose 'opinions' are backed by force or the credible threat of it. "Internet radicals" have come to life in the real world, and organized such that they threaten violence, either racist ("race war now") or anti-semitic. Popper's point specifically talks about "rational argument", of which the pure rhetoric (as pointed out by Sartre) is the only tool anti-semites have at their disposal. They do not argue with rational argument. If my mileage does vary, what then? Marcuse wrote about the requirement of "rational argument" in 1965: "Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. It fits even worse when the variety of pressures unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increasing standard of living and an increasing concentration of power."
  - samatman 7y ago
    I've been trying to avoid an object-level discussion here, because that gets boring pretty quickly. But the criterion you're proposing applies just as well to Antifa as it does to the Three Percenters, unless you add in a heaping helping of "has opinions I don't like". Which I'm unwilling to do, because there are people who don't like my opinions, and this kind of thinking gives them ground to persecute me when it's my turn. So where do I draw the line? Somewhere between the Patriot Prayer crowd and Atomwaffen, basically. The Proud Boys are skirting right along that line, and catching lengthy prison sentences for their trouble. So I think the system we have is working, and don't feel a need to give it more teeth. I think the kids who show up in black and start street fights are a gift to the far right. I wish they'd hang it up; their hearts are mostly in the right place, but it's strategically stupid.

samatman 7y ago

Maybe, but probably not. I encourage people to read the full Karl Popper quote, which contains this: 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. The claim isn't that we should denounce those who hold opinions we find abhorrent as intolerant and fail to tolerate them; it's more specific than that, it says that we may need to physically fight those whose 'opinions' are backed by force or the credible threat of it. I don't think vile, anonymous Internet racists rise to this measure. Your mileage may vary. Most of the Interneterati who invoke the paradox of tolerance are saying that, e.g., being intolerant of the LGBTQ, or racially chauvinist, or less than enthusiastically feminist, is grounds for censorship and deplatforming. I don't agree, and don't get the impression Karl Popper would either.

incompatible 7y ago
I'm not sure at what level the tolerance would end: if there's a group on the Internet which occasionally launches or encourages random acts of violence such as beating up LGBTQ people or a bombing or truck attack, does it deserve to be left in peace? Should only the people who commit the real-world violence be suppressed, and site itself left alone to prepare the next attack? Or does a group need to rise to the level of outright rebellion, like ISIS creating its own state in the Middle East, before it needs to be shut down?
- samatman 7y ago
  I'm not a big believer in collective guilt. If someone hangs out and shitposts on a marginal forum, what is the responsibility of the other people on that forum for their criminal actions? If they're co-conspirators, that's one thing, but making shitty memes and shooting up a synagogue are very different things. I've noticed that every single one of the recent mass murderers from the white supremacist camp has a Facebook account, but no one seems to want to shut down Facebook, just 8chan or whatever. You mentioned truck attacks; someone recently drove a van through a tent full of people canvassing for Trump in Florida. Do we deplatform wherever he was hanging out online, or is it just the combination of "did a terrible thing" and "has opinions that we don't like" that justifies censorship? I don't know what the line is, exactly, only that a lot of people are really eager to draw it way before the point I'm prepared to.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >You mentioned truck attacks; someone recently drove a van through a tent full of people canvassing for Trump in Florida. Do we deplatform wherever he was hanging out online, or is it just the combination of "did a terrible thing" and "has opinions that we don't like" that justifies censorship? This would make the paradox of tolerance laughably restricted - it would require that we think only on the level of individual action, and that there would need to be nothing short of completely unanimous support for an action. This misses out on the idea of stochastic terrorism. From another angle, let's say there were a society of Nazis in the real world. Most, but not all of the group argue that the Jews should be murdered. One of the group murders a Jew. By your metric, we would only be allowed to revoke tolerance of the group if every member murders a Jew. Isn't that a very high price to pay? Would we only be justified in revoking tolerance from a child porn forum if every member has abused a child?
claudiawerner 7y ago
>it says that we may need to physically fight those whose 'opinions' are backed by force or the credible threat of it. "Internet radicals" have come to life in the real world, and organized such that they threaten violence, either racist ("race war now") or anti-semitic. Popper's point specifically talks about "rational argument", of which the pure rhetoric (as pointed out by Sartre) is the only tool anti-semites have at their disposal. They do not argue with rational argument. If my mileage does vary, what then? Marcuse wrote about the requirement of "rational argument" in 1965: "Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. It fits even worse when the variety of pressures unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increasing standard of living and an increasing concentration of power."
- samatman 7y ago
  I've been trying to avoid an object-level discussion here, because that gets boring pretty quickly. But the criterion you're proposing applies just as well to Antifa as it does to the Three Percenters, unless you add in a heaping helping of "has opinions I don't like". Which I'm unwilling to do, because there are people who don't like my opinions, and this kind of thinking gives them ground to persecute me when it's my turn. So where do I draw the line? Somewhere between the Patriot Prayer crowd and Atomwaffen, basically. The Proud Boys are skirting right along that line, and catching lengthy prison sentences for their trouble. So I think the system we have is working, and don't feel a need to give it more teeth. I think the kids who show up in black and start street fights are a gift to the far right. I wish they'd hang it up; their hearts are mostly in the right place, but it's strategically stupid.