8 ms·
honestly, i would say the banning of thedonald is clearly a response to The Paradox of Tolerance rather than not supporting free-speech. you cannot be tolerant
by xevrem 6y ago
honestly, i would say the banning of thedonald is clearly a response to The Paradox of Tolerance rather than not supporting free-speech.
you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you want free speech to survive.
- anticristi 6y agoTIL: "The Paradox of Tolerance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- fastball 6y agoYep, an interesting idea, and definitely something worth thinking about and discussing. The problem is that people like the GC pretend that this is some sort of Universal Law which has been proved to be true, and therefore use it as a carte blanche to "weed out intolerance". Unfortunately it is not a such. It's just an idea, unproven and untested. Though it's also worth noting that I highly doubt Karl Popper would've agreed (based on his various clarifications) with almost any situation where it has been used to justify silencing "the intolerant" on the internet in the last decade.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoThe Paradox of Tolerance refers to the intolerant using violence to physically make it impossible for the tolerant to exist. Unclear to me how banning a subreddit is remotely related.
- bonzini 6y agoThe_donald at some point was basically squatting the entire front page and making it unusable.
- li4ick 6y agobecause reddit programmers are so bad they couldn't just add an _if_ statement, or a limit?
- bonzini 6y agoThat's literally what they did and it was already considered censorship by some.
- cies 6y agoConsidered good censorship by me. If you preach hate to minorities in my house you are also going to be asked to leave.
- bonzini 6y agoOh I agree, and it's what the paradox of tolerance is about.
- rtx 6y agoDo you have same rules for the majority
- cies 6y agoIf that majority has been oppressing a minority then I find a little push back to that majority acceptable. Anyone should be able to address and counter oppression/exploitation. Hating the oppressor falls in line with my expectations.
- saagarjha 6y agoReddit is not your house.
- bonzini 6y agoIt is Reddit, Inc.'s house.
- cies 6y ago> the intolerant using violence to physically make it impossible for the tolerant to exist. Are the KKK and some extreme white supremacist org not exactly that? They want a sub group of society to be removed, and have shown to not shun violence. Being intolerant to these hate groups is VERY NORMAL to me, and sometime we need law help platform them. It get really sad when a president seems to kinda like these groups.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoIf any extremists act on their ideas using violence, then of course they would count. Otherwise, tolerance of negative ideas is a part of the ‘free society’ package. Merely having unpopular or wrong opinions is not equivalent to preventing the tolerant from existing.
- voldacar 6y agoThedonald existed on reddit for quite some time and during that period, free speech survived relatively intact. Since the banning of thedonald along with hundreds of other subs, free speech has suffered, not improved, inconsistent with your hypothesis. Also, "the paradox of tolerance" can be trotted out to justify just about any banning or censoring of someone you don't like
- cies 6y agoNope, it specifically covers "preaching of intolerance", that's not "just someone's speech you dont like". Lets say I speak about gardening without pesticides, and someone with a pesticide factory does not like that speech. How do you think the "the paradox of tolerance" can be used to shut me up in this case? You can't. Case closed.
- lol2143651 6y ago"Pesticides like Zyclon B were used to gas the Jews. This man is an evil Nazi who we must ban."
- Avamander 6y agoThere was no free speech with r/thedonald, they banned anyone that didn't agree with them. Blatantly.
- voldacar 6y agoI was referring to the health of free speech across the site in general, I wasn't making a defense of thedonald. And 90% of political subs on reddit blatantly ban people from $opposite_side, that's just how reddit is
- valvar 6y agoNo, the utterly ridiculous "paradox of tolerance" is just a bad cope for people who truly do not believe in free speech. "Free speech" which only applies to your predefined set of approved speech is not free speech, but a monstrous parody of it. The purpose of free speech is to enable dissent, not to affirm the status quo.
- sebmellen 6y agoTo piggyback on this, here is a quote from Karl Popper (the "discoverer" of the Paradox of Tolerance): > 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.
- gameswithgo 6y ago>as long as we can counter them by rational argument I don't know if y'all are new to the internet, but I've been here since around 1990 and we ration argument hasn't done any good. I feel like a lot of these ideas around speech are ones that came from people who were used to arguing with other intelligent people. When the unwashed masses are involved, rational argument doesn't work at all. Some people understand this, which is why people like Trump can get elected. It wasn't as if there was a failure of making rational arguments to counter him. The average person just does not care/understand what a rational argument is. I offer no solutions here, sorry.
- sebmellen 6y agoI strongly disagree with you on one point: > When the unwashed masses are involved, rational argument doesn't work at all I believe this is an extremely illiberal viewpoint. Someone who can make this argument could well be a monarchist, fascist, or totalitarian at heart. The foundation of a democracy is the belief that the "unwashed masses" can hold informed views on politics, and at the very least should have the right to. Also, the average person DOES care what a rational argument is. A significant amount of Trump's 2016 voter base understood him to be a populist to the left of Hillary. His campaign rhetoric of isolationism and ending the wars spoke to large swaths of the population, which swept him into office. Now, all the issues you point out are important, and must be tackled, but I don't think the right way to tackle them is to label groups of people with a broad brush. If we understand that people are capable of being informed, we should ask: "how can people be informed>", and "what can we do to make sure that informing people in an unbiased way is possible?". I don't think social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have asked themselves these questions, at least not with any sincerity. I think HN is a great example of the principles of (nearly) free speech in action. Look at the discussion we're having now!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rXoX 6y agoPfft. LOL. Read Nadine Strossen. Learn a little. Stop using phrases you heard somebody dumber than you say.
- kaoD 6y agoIn Karl Popper's own words: > 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 be most unwise.
- superkuh 6y agoAll those political bannnings by admins aren't really the big issue (and only relatively recent). The big issue re: reddit and free speech has to do with things that Reddit corp has trouble monetizing and putting ads beside. Sure, some of the bans might come from a partisan political place but the vast majority of reddit admin actions are just that of corporate drones protecting corporate image in order to make more money. Centralized corporate run proprietary systems will always end up like this. It's the circle of web life.
- 34679 6y ago"Your intolerance will not be tolerated!"