5 ms·

Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable. h

Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

ttt0 6y ago
It's fine, just don't call yourself "tolerant". It's doublespeak, just like how the word "racism" is used today
- monkeypizza 6y ago
  In your definition of tolerant, is it required to tolerate even attempts to destroy the tolerant person? i.e. is there a line beyond which tolerance doesn't apply? Where do laws fit in here? I honestly thought that tolerance already included this concept - it actually means tolerant of difference of opinion, except for attempts to overthrow and replace the system of tolerance itself.
  - schoen 6y ago
    I've thought that the "attempts to destroy" and "attempts to overthrow" are limited in the sense of "imminent lawless action" and not "mere teaching or advocacy". E.g. if someone says "we should have a dictatorship of the proletariat/guardianship of the Islamic Jurist/integralist monarchy/national socialism/etc. instead of the social order that we have now", that statement doesn't cause or create those systems. Tolerating it presumably does increase the chance that one of those systems will eventually come to power (because advocating it could be an important step in creating it), but there's no guarantee of that, any more than there's a guarantee that tolerating any other idea or belief will lead to that idea or belief's ascendancy or general acceptance! (And on the other hand, not tolerating these ideas also opens the door to making other beliefs shared with any of these belief systems taboo.)
    - monkeypizza 6y ago
      Right. The original comment suggested that any prohibitions made by an allegedly tolerant society invalidate their claim. I don't think that is a very useful definition of tolerance. The only stable system here, if there is one, might be something like hardcoded self-defense actions, plus otherwise general tolerance. Not saying it's logically or morally consistent.
      - schoen 6y ago
        Thanks, I think I might be gradually understanding more of what you're saying. I feel like I've often heard the paradox of tolerance invoked in regard to what U.S. free expression law would call "pure speech", but it seems like your point is more along the lines that there's no group or society that would literally do nothing at all to defend itself in any circumstances, and that that's an unachievable or unsustainable extreme. Maybe something like the most extreme form of pacificism, where people imply that they will literally allow themselves to be killed without trying to prevent it in any way.
        monkeypizza 6y ago
        right - and this all started when someone who said "hey, let's stop people from shutting down discussion" was accused of being intolerant. When in fact for the existence of tolerance to continue, some self-defense is necessary.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    First of all, you're mixing up opinions and actions. Two completely different things. Second, I think of tolerance as a personal thing. But on a level of society or government, that you're talking about - I don't know, you tell me. Let me ask you, do you tolerate sexist jokes? Because I really doubt many of the today's proponents of this theory do. Sexist jokes are not intolerant, making them is not an attempt to overthrow any kind of system, it's just jokes. But yet, a lot of people do not tolerate them. Either don't want to be in the same room as the person who makes them or will even try to harm this person in some way. Both fit the definition of intolerance. Former is completely fine, latter probably not so much. But as I understand it, it's not so much about petty things like this, but about intolerant ideologies. Well, communism happens to be one of those ideologies. It does not tolerate anyone who owns or argues for private ownership and seeks to overthrow any system that protects it. And if we were honest, that would mean that we should also get rid of a large part of Antifa (ironically a manifestation of this theory), because many of them self-identify as communists or subscribe to ideologies derived from it. > Where do laws fit in here? Speech laws, freedom of association. Criminal law in case a real harm was done. The word "tolerance" should not appear anywhere in the law.
marshmallow_12 6y ago
It's a bit of an eye opener. Our supposed moral advancements is merely a part of the human condition, and not a product of it. Essentially, we are guided by principles that we think we are controlling. Wow. Not that i agree with your conclusions.
schoen 6y ago
I'm kind of surprised at how the "paradox of tolerance" has gained so much currency in the past few years as if it were an obviously-established principle in free speech theory or something. In the recent past, this idea was much less accepted in the U.S. because it was not assumed that allowing people who were intolerant in some regard to express their ideas (or people who were hostile in some regard to U.S. society or culture) would inevitably lead to destroying the tolerant social order. Instead, the "marketplace of ideas" theory was usually taken to mean that people would consider various ideas (including intolerant ideas, or ideas aimed at radically changing the social order) and, in most cases, largely find them unappealing and not act on them. In the Cold War era, there were lots of civil libertarians who thought Communism was gravely evil and threatening, but that there was no "paradox" in allowing Communists to advocate their views because those views would lose an open discussion. The fact that Communists didn't necessarily believe in free speech or intend to reciprocate this tolerance did nothing to undermine this confidence; it was like "Communism is a bad idea and it's not going to win in a free marketplace of ideas; only the Communists need to use censorship to shore up their bad ideas, whereas we don't". Similarly, the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie (etc.) didn't think that it was a paradox to defend and tolerate people who themselves would not tolerate the ACLU or other minorities. They believed that those people had pretty crummy ideas and that most Americans would see through those ideas. Similarly, there have always been religious groups that are wildly intolerant in the sense that they believe that their religion is the only true religion, that everyone should follow it, and even that ideally people should be forced to follow it, if that were possible. (To say nothing of the harshness with which they may treat people who disbelieve or mock their religions, or of people who flout their precepts.) Nonetheless, tolerating these religions isn't really a "paradox" except in the case where they're capable of taking over a whole society. Which is not never, but also not always. The stability question is subtle because it depends a lot on your assumptions. But isn't the paradigmatic unstable equilibrium case where most people in the society are willing or eager to become more intolerant, and tolerance is only maintained because they're kept from hearing suggestions that would move them in that direction? As I've been noticing more and more, that's what the west said about our adversaries in the Cold War: rickety societies propped up by lies and suppression!
- monkeypizza 6y ago

ttt0 6y ago

It's fine, just don't call yourself "tolerant". It's doublespeak, just like how the word "racism" is used today

monkeypizza 6y ago
In your definition of tolerant, is it required to tolerate even attempts to destroy the tolerant person? i.e. is there a line beyond which tolerance doesn't apply? Where do laws fit in here? I honestly thought that tolerance already included this concept - it actually means tolerant of difference of opinion, except for attempts to overthrow and replace the system of tolerance itself.
- schoen 6y ago
  I've thought that the "attempts to destroy" and "attempts to overthrow" are limited in the sense of "imminent lawless action" and not "mere teaching or advocacy". E.g. if someone says "we should have a dictatorship of the proletariat/guardianship of the Islamic Jurist/integralist monarchy/national socialism/etc. instead of the social order that we have now", that statement doesn't cause or create those systems. Tolerating it presumably does increase the chance that one of those systems will eventually come to power (because advocating it could be an important step in creating it), but there's no guarantee of that, any more than there's a guarantee that tolerating any other idea or belief will lead to that idea or belief's ascendancy or general acceptance! (And on the other hand, not tolerating these ideas also opens the door to making other beliefs shared with any of these belief systems taboo.)
  - monkeypizza 6y ago
    Right. The original comment suggested that any prohibitions made by an allegedly tolerant society invalidate their claim. I don't think that is a very useful definition of tolerance. The only stable system here, if there is one, might be something like hardcoded self-defense actions, plus otherwise general tolerance. Not saying it's logically or morally consistent.
    - schoen 6y ago
      Thanks, I think I might be gradually understanding more of what you're saying. I feel like I've often heard the paradox of tolerance invoked in regard to what U.S. free expression law would call "pure speech", but it seems like your point is more along the lines that there's no group or society that would literally do nothing at all to defend itself in any circumstances, and that that's an unachievable or unsustainable extreme. Maybe something like the most extreme form of pacificism, where people imply that they will literally allow themselves to be killed without trying to prevent it in any way.
      - monkeypizza 6y ago
        right - and this all started when someone who said "hey, let's stop people from shutting down discussion" was accused of being intolerant. When in fact for the existence of tolerance to continue, some self-defense is necessary.
- ttt0 6y ago
  First of all, you're mixing up opinions and actions. Two completely different things. Second, I think of tolerance as a personal thing. But on a level of society or government, that you're talking about - I don't know, you tell me. Let me ask you, do you tolerate sexist jokes? Because I really doubt many of the today's proponents of this theory do. Sexist jokes are not intolerant, making them is not an attempt to overthrow any kind of system, it's just jokes. But yet, a lot of people do not tolerate them. Either don't want to be in the same room as the person who makes them or will even try to harm this person in some way. Both fit the definition of intolerance. Former is completely fine, latter probably not so much. But as I understand it, it's not so much about petty things like this, but about intolerant ideologies. Well, communism happens to be one of those ideologies. It does not tolerate anyone who owns or argues for private ownership and seeks to overthrow any system that protects it. And if we were honest, that would mean that we should also get rid of a large part of Antifa (ironically a manifestation of this theory), because many of them self-identify as communists or subscribe to ideologies derived from it. > Where do laws fit in here? Speech laws, freedom of association. Criminal law in case a real harm was done. The word "tolerance" should not appear anywhere in the law.

marshmallow_12 6y ago

It's a bit of an eye opener. Our supposed moral advancements is merely a part of the human condition, and not a product of it. Essentially, we are guided by principles that we think we are controlling. Wow. Not that i agree with your conclusions.

schoen 6y ago

I'm kind of surprised at how the "paradox of tolerance" has gained so much currency in the past few years as if it were an obviously-established principle in free speech theory or something. In the recent past, this idea was much less accepted in the U.S. because it was not assumed that allowing people who were intolerant in some regard to express their ideas (or people who were hostile in some regard to U.S. society or culture) would inevitably lead to destroying the tolerant social order. Instead, the "marketplace of ideas" theory was usually taken to mean that people would consider various ideas (including intolerant ideas, or ideas aimed at radically changing the social order) and, in most cases, largely find them unappealing and not act on them. In the Cold War era, there were lots of civil libertarians who thought Communism was gravely evil and threatening, but that there was no "paradox" in allowing Communists to advocate their views because those views would lose an open discussion. The fact that Communists didn't necessarily believe in free speech or intend to reciprocate this tolerance did nothing to undermine this confidence; it was like "Communism is a bad idea and it's not going to win in a free marketplace of ideas; only the Communists need to use censorship to shore up their bad ideas, whereas we don't". Similarly, the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie (etc.) didn't think that it was a paradox to defend and tolerate people who themselves would not tolerate the ACLU or other minorities. They believed that those people had pretty crummy ideas and that most Americans would see through those ideas. Similarly, there have always been religious groups that are wildly intolerant in the sense that they believe that their religion is the only true religion, that everyone should follow it, and even that ideally people should be forced to follow it, if that were possible. (To say nothing of the harshness with which they may treat people who disbelieve or mock their religions, or of people who flout their precepts.) Nonetheless, tolerating these religions isn't really a "paradox" except in the case where they're capable of taking over a whole society. Which is not never, but also not always. The stability question is subtle because it depends a lot on your assumptions. But isn't the paradigmatic unstable equilibrium case where most people in the society are willing or eager to become more intolerant, and tolerance is only maintained because they're kept from hearing suggestions that would move them in that direction? As I've been noticing more and more, that's what the west said about our adversaries in the Cold War: rickety societies propped up by lies and suppression!

monkeypizza 6y ago