3 ms·

> Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventual

by nl 6y ago

> Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.[1] If you haven't read Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" then I'd suggest you do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

xyzzyz 6y ago
Have you read Popper? Here's a relevant quote from him about 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 most 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. I think it's safe to say that the extent of censorship perpetrated by the big tech is not limited to the voices that teach others to "answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". They of course ban some of that too, but they ban quite a lot more.
- nl 6y ago
  I think this part: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion" is clearly relevant when the very facts public opinion is based on are attacked.
- diggernet 6y ago
  > ... answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. The real paradox of the paradox of tolerance is how many people use Popper quotes to rationalize their own intolerance for people with differing ideas, without any awareness that Popper was speaking only of intolerance for people who resort to violence.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    Yes. It's as if people want to just use name of famous philosopher to justify their urge to censor people and ideas they don't like.
refurb 6y ago
I’m guess you haven’t read it? Because your summary is not accurate.
- nl 6y ago
  That summary is a direct copy and paste from the Wikipedia link I posted and references in that quote. And yeah, I have read Popper as well as Wikipedia. Saying "it's not accurate" isn't accurate.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Ok, but you selectively quoted a part that makes it sound like Popper is fine not tolerating any intolerance. He wasn’t. He basically said you tolerate intolerance as much as you can without risking the collapse of social order. Big difference.
    - nl 6y ago
      > you selectively quoted a part that makes it sound like Popper is fine not tolerating any intolerance I copied and pasted the entirety of the top section of Wikipedia with no editing. That section says "if a society is tolerant without limit" (my emphasis) which goes to your point that there is a threshold here.

by nl 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago

Have you read Popper? Here's a relevant quote from him about 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 most 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. I think it's safe to say that the extent of censorship perpetrated by the big tech is not limited to the voices that teach others to "answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". They of course ban some of that too, but they ban quite a lot more.

nl 6y ago
I think this part: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion" is clearly relevant when the very facts public opinion is based on are attacked.
diggernet 6y ago
> ... answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. The real paradox of the paradox of tolerance is how many people use Popper quotes to rationalize their own intolerance for people with differing ideas, without any awareness that Popper was speaking only of intolerance for people who resort to violence.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Yes. It's as if people want to just use name of famous philosopher to justify their urge to censor people and ideas they don't like.

refurb 6y ago

I’m guess you haven’t read it? Because your summary is not accurate.

nl 6y ago
That summary is a direct copy and paste from the Wikipedia link I posted and references in that quote. And yeah, I have read Popper as well as Wikipedia. Saying "it's not accurate" isn't accurate.
- refurb 6y ago
  Ok, but you selectively quoted a part that makes it sound like Popper is fine not tolerating any intolerance. He wasn’t. He basically said you tolerate intolerance as much as you can without risking the collapse of social order. Big difference.
  - nl 6y ago
    > you selectively quoted a part that makes it sound like Popper is fine not tolerating any intolerance I copied and pasted the entirety of the top section of Wikipedia with no editing. That section says "if a society is tolerant without limit" (my emphasis) which goes to your point that there is a threshold here.