5 ms·

Frankly yes. A tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
A tolerant society that doesn't "tolerate intolerance" (your words) is an intolerant society. We are heading toward authoritarianism.
- rzz3 6y ago
  There’s a south park episode about this :)
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  See "Paradox of tolerance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - pineapple_rice 6y ago
    Reposting from here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696132 The paradox of tolerance is one of the weirdest concepts I see being quoted everywhere that absolutely makes no sense to me. It seems so obviously inherently flawed. ________________________________ Who defines intolerance? Historically that's the people in power. In the 50's that was the US government and powerful people like CIA Director J Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy who used their power to root out leftists, branding them as communists. They said free america could not tolerate the intolerant leftists because socialism and communists were inherently intolerant. The USSR did this by sending people who questioned party agenda straight to the gulags. "By going against party thinking, these people are pushing for an intolerant society that is stratified with the class structures of old. We need to get rid of them before they ruin our perfect tolerant society." The same logic is used to try to stamp out Muslims in countries like India right now and other places in the world historically. "If we leave the intolerant Muslims around, they'll bring forth Jihad and enforce Sharia law on everyone. The Koran is very intolerant about how non-muslims should be treated, we need to force them out because their intolerance is a threat to tolerance everywhere." Literally every Christian country post-Martin Luther in the middle ages used that logic to wage wars on other Christian countries. Not just Christian vs. Christian of course. It's why countries in the past fought against each other over religion so much. When intolerance is defined as views that I don't agree with, it becomes kill or be killed world. One of the best features of the enlightenment thinking is the concept of tolerance. One of the fundamental principles of Western thought. It's literally the reason why non-Christians can live in formerly Christian countries without being persecuted. It's why we accept people thinking about other government types other than an absolute monarchy.
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account. Creating accounts for political flamewar is not allowed here, regardless of what politics you're for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ajross 6y ago
  > We are heading toward authoritarianism. We had a coup attempt on Wednesday! We're already there. This is the attempt to recover. Maybe it won't work. I'm not super hopeful. But in a country where the president can aim a riot at congress, his ability to tweet doesn't really seem like the freedom we should be most concerned about.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    >coup attempt It wasn't even close to a coup. https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even-close https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even... >This is the attempt to recover. This is a massive step forward to authoritarianism. Internet monopolies colluding to censor the internet, politicians calling for protestors to be put on the no fly list without due process, growing calls for the government to censor the internet, and more to come.
    - ajross 6y ago
      > It wasn't even close to a coup You'd never say that if it wasn't "your people" in there. Never. Don't claim to be a patriot ever again if you think dismissing the first successful attack on a congressional session (hell, the VP was in there too) in the history of the republic is a good argument to make. Hell, five people died. That's more than at the Reichstag fire (I checked with Godwin, by the way, he approves). This was a moment of deep shame. And comments like yours make it worse.
      - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
        I am interested in the truth. The truth is that the events at the capitol were not a coup. This is deliberate propagandist language. >This was a moment of deep shame. And comments like yours make it worse. The people turning their back on our civil liberties are far more shameful.
        ajross 6y ago
        > The truth is that the events at the capitol were not a coup. This is deliberate propagandist language. You say so only because it failed. If the tunnels didn't exist? If the mob had been faster or better armed? How would it have ended? Would Pence and Pelosi still be hostages? (Edit: not worth continuing. But I bet anything if I kept going you'd eventually pull out a thesaurus and zing me with BUT it's REALLY an "autogolpe!")
- vecter 6y ago
  > A tolerant society that doesn't "tolerate intolerance" (your words) is an intolerant society. Absolutely wrong [0]. > We are heading toward authoritarianism. With the failure of this insurrection and the (unfortunately very weak) backlash against Trump, the primary leader of this failed coup, we've actually moved away from authoritarianism. If anything, we need stronger action by the government to prevent this from happening again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- btmiller 6y ago
  I’m afraid absolute freedom is slightly overrated. You have to draw the line somewhere. I’m okay with where it’s been drawn today. It’s a “you’ll know it when you see it” thing. This isn’t authoritarianism, and we can still rightfully claim to be a tolerant society with sound rejection and banishment of hate speech. Hypothetical example, my religion does not believe in gay marriage, yet I don’t prohibit others from pursuing a happier life. But (the royal) you must absolutely draw the line at enabling hate.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    >with sound rejection and banishment of hate speech Unless it's directed at white people. That one's been embraced by our tolerant overlords.
    - btmiller 6y ago
      I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but I hope you find peace.
      - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
        The people who claim to be on the side of tolerance are very intolerant people.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do not recognize the quote.
pineapple_rice 6y ago
I don't think you've understood what an insane idea that is. Who defines intolerance? Historically that's the people in power. In the 50's that was the US government and powerful people like CIA Director J Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy who used their power to root out leftists, branding them as communists. They said free america could not tolerate the intolerant leftists because socialism and communists were inherently intolerant. The USSR did this by sending people who questioned party agenda straight to the gulags. "By going against party thinking, these people are pushing for an intolerant society that is stratified with the class structures of old. We need to get rid of them before they ruin our perfect tolerant society." The same logic is used to try to stamp out Muslims in countries like India right now and other places in the world historically. "If we leave the intolerant Muslims around, they'll bring forth Jihad and enforce Sharia law on everyone. The Koran is very intolerant about how non-muslims should be treated, we need to force them out because their intolerance is a threat to tolerance everywhere." Literally every Christian country post-Martin Luther in the middle ages used that logic to wage wars on other Christian countries. Not just Christian vs. Christian of course. It's why countries in the past fought against each other over religion so much. When intolerance is defined as views that I don't agree with, it becomes kill or be killed world. One of the best features of the enlightenment thinking is the concept of tolerance. One of the fundamental principles of Western thought. It's literally the reason why non-Christians can live in formerly Christian countries without being persecuted. It's why we accept people thinking about other government types other than an absolute monarchy. The fact that you can say that statement without irony is honestly so scary to me.
- pqhwan 6y ago
  Yes, the definition of tolerance in a society is often a function of its existing social consensus. So if your social consensus is flawed, tolerance of it is also flawed. But when the consensus in question is something like “you shouldn’t mob up and storm the legislature because you lost an election,” yes, the paradox of tolerance applies, unironically.
- Steltek 6y ago
  Twitter is not sending anyone to a gulag. What the flipping hell are you talking about?
dang 6y ago
Please don't post flamebait to HN. This cliché predictably made the flamewar hellishly worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696026.
- btmiller 6y ago
  Apologies, that wasn’t the intention but I take your point. It’s a difficult time in the US right now and it requires difficult decisions on the type of discussions that are useful.

A tolerant society that doesn't "tolerate intolerance" (your words) is an intolerant society. We are heading toward authoritarianism.

rzz3 6y ago
There’s a south park episode about this :)
alisonkisk 6y ago
See "Paradox of tolerance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- pineapple_rice 6y ago
  Reposting from here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696132 The paradox of tolerance is one of the weirdest concepts I see being quoted everywhere that absolutely makes no sense to me. It seems so obviously inherently flawed. ________________________________ Who defines intolerance? Historically that's the people in power. In the 50's that was the US government and powerful people like CIA Director J Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy who used their power to root out leftists, branding them as communists. They said free america could not tolerate the intolerant leftists because socialism and communists were inherently intolerant. The USSR did this by sending people who questioned party agenda straight to the gulags. "By going against party thinking, these people are pushing for an intolerant society that is stratified with the class structures of old. We need to get rid of them before they ruin our perfect tolerant society." The same logic is used to try to stamp out Muslims in countries like India right now and other places in the world historically. "If we leave the intolerant Muslims around, they'll bring forth Jihad and enforce Sharia law on everyone. The Koran is very intolerant about how non-muslims should be treated, we need to force them out because their intolerance is a threat to tolerance everywhere." Literally every Christian country post-Martin Luther in the middle ages used that logic to wage wars on other Christian countries. Not just Christian vs. Christian of course. It's why countries in the past fought against each other over religion so much. When intolerance is defined as views that I don't agree with, it becomes kill or be killed world. One of the best features of the enlightenment thinking is the concept of tolerance. One of the fundamental principles of Western thought. It's literally the reason why non-Christians can live in formerly Christian countries without being persecuted. It's why we accept people thinking about other government types other than an absolute monarchy.
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account. Creating accounts for political flamewar is not allowed here, regardless of what politics you're for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ajross 6y ago
> We are heading toward authoritarianism. We had a coup attempt on Wednesday! We're already there. This is the attempt to recover. Maybe it won't work. I'm not super hopeful. But in a country where the president can aim a riot at congress, his ability to tweet doesn't really seem like the freedom we should be most concerned about.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  >coup attempt It wasn't even close to a coup. https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even-close https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even... >This is the attempt to recover. This is a massive step forward to authoritarianism. Internet monopolies colluding to censor the internet, politicians calling for protestors to be put on the no fly list without due process, growing calls for the government to censor the internet, and more to come.
  - ajross 6y ago
    > It wasn't even close to a coup You'd never say that if it wasn't "your people" in there. Never. Don't claim to be a patriot ever again if you think dismissing the first successful attack on a congressional session (hell, the VP was in there too) in the history of the republic is a good argument to make. Hell, five people died. That's more than at the Reichstag fire (I checked with Godwin, by the way, he approves). This was a moment of deep shame. And comments like yours make it worse.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      I am interested in the truth. The truth is that the events at the capitol were not a coup. This is deliberate propagandist language. >This was a moment of deep shame. And comments like yours make it worse. The people turning their back on our civil liberties are far more shameful.
      - ajross 6y ago
        > The truth is that the events at the capitol were not a coup. This is deliberate propagandist language. You say so only because it failed. If the tunnels didn't exist? If the mob had been faster or better armed? How would it have ended? Would Pence and Pelosi still be hostages? (Edit: not worth continuing. But I bet anything if I kept going you'd eventually pull out a thesaurus and zing me with BUT it's REALLY an "autogolpe!")
vecter 6y ago
> A tolerant society that doesn't "tolerate intolerance" (your words) is an intolerant society. Absolutely wrong [0]. > We are heading toward authoritarianism. With the failure of this insurrection and the (unfortunately very weak) backlash against Trump, the primary leader of this failed coup, we've actually moved away from authoritarianism. If anything, we need stronger action by the government to prevent this from happening again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
btmiller 6y ago
I’m afraid absolute freedom is slightly overrated. You have to draw the line somewhere. I’m okay with where it’s been drawn today. It’s a “you’ll know it when you see it” thing. This isn’t authoritarianism, and we can still rightfully claim to be a tolerant society with sound rejection and banishment of hate speech. Hypothetical example, my religion does not believe in gay marriage, yet I don’t prohibit others from pursuing a happier life. But (the royal) you must absolutely draw the line at enabling hate.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  >with sound rejection and banishment of hate speech Unless it's directed at white people. That one's been embraced by our tolerant overlords.
  - btmiller 6y ago
    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but I hope you find peace.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      The people who claim to be on the side of tolerance are very intolerant people.
jcranmer 6y ago
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do not recognize the quote.

pineapple_rice 6y ago

I don't think you've understood what an insane idea that is. Who defines intolerance? Historically that's the people in power. In the 50's that was the US government and powerful people like CIA Director J Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy who used their power to root out leftists, branding them as communists. They said free america could not tolerate the intolerant leftists because socialism and communists were inherently intolerant. The USSR did this by sending people who questioned party agenda straight to the gulags. "By going against party thinking, these people are pushing for an intolerant society that is stratified with the class structures of old. We need to get rid of them before they ruin our perfect tolerant society." The same logic is used to try to stamp out Muslims in countries like India right now and other places in the world historically. "If we leave the intolerant Muslims around, they'll bring forth Jihad and enforce Sharia law on everyone. The Koran is very intolerant about how non-muslims should be treated, we need to force them out because their intolerance is a threat to tolerance everywhere." Literally every Christian country post-Martin Luther in the middle ages used that logic to wage wars on other Christian countries. Not just Christian vs. Christian of course. It's why countries in the past fought against each other over religion so much. When intolerance is defined as views that I don't agree with, it becomes kill or be killed world. One of the best features of the enlightenment thinking is the concept of tolerance. One of the fundamental principles of Western thought. It's literally the reason why non-Christians can live in formerly Christian countries without being persecuted. It's why we accept people thinking about other government types other than an absolute monarchy. The fact that you can say that statement without irony is honestly so scary to me.

pqhwan 6y ago
Yes, the definition of tolerance in a society is often a function of its existing social consensus. So if your social consensus is flawed, tolerance of it is also flawed. But when the consensus in question is something like “you shouldn’t mob up and storm the legislature because you lost an election,” yes, the paradox of tolerance applies, unironically.
Steltek 6y ago
Twitter is not sending anyone to a gulag. What the flipping hell are you talking about?

dang 6y ago

Please don't post flamebait to HN. This cliché predictably made the flamewar hellishly worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696026.

btmiller 6y ago
Apologies, that wasn’t the intention but I take your point. It’s a difficult time in the US right now and it requires difficult decisions on the type of discussions that are useful.