5 ms·

I'll embrace that. Yes, the most tolerant societies tolerate the intolerable, and that's good and right. something something paradox of "please ban things I do

I'll embrace that. Yes, the most tolerant societies tolerate the intolerable, and that's good and right. something something paradox of "please ban things I don't like" something what good is tolerance if people end up disagreeing with me

shadowgovt 6y ago
Tolerating the intolerable is much worse than that. A society ends up nourishing something that destroys it, because the intolerable is under no obligation to play fair. Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons. Citation needed. Germany has had strict censorship laws since forever. They obviously did not stop the Nazis. If you're arguing that censorship is required to stop the Nazis, that's a point you should address, especially given that they had specifically added censorship laws against right-wing extremists in the Weimar Republic in the Republikschutzgesetz.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    What I'm missing is signal on how those laws were enforced. The Weimar constitution included (translation) "No censorship will take place," which does make me wonder how effective the existing laws were.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Emergency decrees could freely override any such provision, and became increasingly common during the Weimar Republic (particularly so in the early 1930s) as a result of gridlock within Parliament. The no-censorship provision, while real, was not enforceable as a matter of fact.
- free_rms 6y ago
  The thing is, whenever you invoke Popper, you're calling the person you disagree with a literal Nazi who wants to liquidate millions of people. Anything short of that and the logic falls apart -- there's no threat in tolerating some disagreeable person unless they go on to take over the government and forcibly outlaw all disagreement with them.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I'm afraid I don't know what "invoke Popper" means. > there's no threat in tolerating some disagreeable person unless they go on to take over the government and forcibly outlaw all disagreement with them. If that intent is demonstrable, there's no reason to assist them in their goals.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      Karl Popper's the original author of the paradox of tolerance meme. The paradox isn't "you don't have to tolerate intolerant people because they're bad and tolerance is our goal", the paradox is that tolerating people who then proceed to seize power and outlaw all disagreement with them undermines tolerance. Unless there's a credible threat, it's a misuse of the quote. If you're talking about anti-Nazi laws in Germany, fine, but I see the quote trotted out all the time to justify eg twitter banning some alt-right-adjacent nerd for having bad opinions.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        I suspect what has changed is that such "alt-right-adjacent nerds" are increasingly seen as credible threats. Nobody paid much attention to what that guy on gab was saying to like-minded folk on gab... Until he grabbed a gun and massacred everyone in a religious building. When the threat evaluation models aren't trusted, the spread on evaluation of "credible threat" increases.
        free_rms 6y ago
        I mean, even a mass shooting like that doesn't trigger the paradox of tolerance. It's a terrible tragedy, and a law enforcement issue, but society as a whole is not less tolerant for it -- we all agree, don't shoot up a synagogue or mosque, that is extremely bad form in our society. The paradox of tolerance would be if we decided to be tolerant of a pro-mosque-shooting political party and they took power and instituted mandatory mosque shootings every Friday. We would have messed up in that case. It's not, "I demand people who disagree with me on less clear-cut issues be silenced because they're bigots, according to me".
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Germany has sharply limited censorship laws. I do not oppose them more out of respect for the victims of Nazism than any genuine agreement that they do good; but I will oppose their expansion. I do not think they are useful; I think they are limited in harm.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Tolerating the intolerable is much worse than that. A society ends up nourishing something that destroys it, because the intolerable is under no obligation to play fair. Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.

luckylion 6y ago
> Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons. Citation needed. Germany has had strict censorship laws since forever. They obviously did not stop the Nazis. If you're arguing that censorship is required to stop the Nazis, that's a point you should address, especially given that they had specifically added censorship laws against right-wing extremists in the Weimar Republic in the Republikschutzgesetz.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  What I'm missing is signal on how those laws were enforced. The Weimar constitution included (translation) "No censorship will take place," which does make me wonder how effective the existing laws were.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Emergency decrees could freely override any such provision, and became increasingly common during the Weimar Republic (particularly so in the early 1930s) as a result of gridlock within Parliament. The no-censorship provision, while real, was not enforceable as a matter of fact.
free_rms 6y ago
The thing is, whenever you invoke Popper, you're calling the person you disagree with a literal Nazi who wants to liquidate millions of people. Anything short of that and the logic falls apart -- there's no threat in tolerating some disagreeable person unless they go on to take over the government and forcibly outlaw all disagreement with them.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I'm afraid I don't know what "invoke Popper" means. > there's no threat in tolerating some disagreeable person unless they go on to take over the government and forcibly outlaw all disagreement with them. If that intent is demonstrable, there's no reason to assist them in their goals.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Karl Popper's the original author of the paradox of tolerance meme. The paradox isn't "you don't have to tolerate intolerant people because they're bad and tolerance is our goal", the paradox is that tolerating people who then proceed to seize power and outlaw all disagreement with them undermines tolerance. Unless there's a credible threat, it's a misuse of the quote. If you're talking about anti-Nazi laws in Germany, fine, but I see the quote trotted out all the time to justify eg twitter banning some alt-right-adjacent nerd for having bad opinions.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      I suspect what has changed is that such "alt-right-adjacent nerds" are increasingly seen as credible threats. Nobody paid much attention to what that guy on gab was saying to like-minded folk on gab... Until he grabbed a gun and massacred everyone in a religious building. When the threat evaluation models aren't trusted, the spread on evaluation of "credible threat" increases.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        I mean, even a mass shooting like that doesn't trigger the paradox of tolerance. It's a terrible tragedy, and a law enforcement issue, but society as a whole is not less tolerant for it -- we all agree, don't shoot up a synagogue or mosque, that is extremely bad form in our society. The paradox of tolerance would be if we decided to be tolerant of a pro-mosque-shooting political party and they took power and instituted mandatory mosque shootings every Friday. We would have messed up in that case. It's not, "I demand people who disagree with me on less clear-cut issues be silenced because they're bigots, according to me".
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Germany has sharply limited censorship laws. I do not oppose them more out of respect for the victims of Nazism than any genuine agreement that they do good; but I will oppose their expansion. I do not think they are useful; I think they are limited in harm.