3 ms·

While I dont know anything about the RMS case (first heard about it now), your comment reminds me about the paradox of tolerance. While it's easy to cry hypocri

While I dont know anything about the RMS case (first heard about it now), your comment reminds me about the paradox of tolerance. While it's easy to cry hypocrisy when intolerant people aren't tolerated by those in favor of tolerance, it's needed in order to not let intolerance win. If anything it's more hypocrisy by the intolerant. "I don't have to tolerate X, but you have to tolerate me" like some catch22. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
greggyb 6y ago
I see the paradox of tolerance come up from time to time, and often with links to Wikipedia, usually implying that intolerance should be suppressed. A perusal of the literature around the topic suggests that moral philosophical consensus is that intolerance should, in fact, be tolerated except in cases of imminent danger to the tolerant society or individuals in it. (Note: I cannot tell from your post where you fall on this point. This is a more general response on the paradox of tolerance as I typically see it in this sort of context.) From the section of Popper in the Wikipedia article: > 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. Rather, he claims that: > we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary... Thus, tolerance of intolerance is the default, with suppression of intolerance reserved as a last resort. From the article (original emphasis): > Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed > Thomas Jefferson had already addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilise the United States and its unity, saying, "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Another moral philosopher, Rawls, agrees that tolerance should be the default, and suppression of intolerance used only as a last resort (emphasis mine): > In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concluded in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant ... Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance .... More Rawls: > This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." In the Wikipedia article, there are several examples of people calling out the hypocrisy of tolerating intolerant viewpoints, but there are no claims that the default stance against intolerance in a tolerant society should be suppression. EDIT: added a missing subordinate clause to clarify the first paragraph.
kazinator 6y ago
But Richard Stallman is not intolerant! The issue is that he's too tolerant. And this is the crux. There exists kind of secondary tolerance paradox in liberal politics whereby you're branded as intolerant simply for being excessively tolerant, as evidenced by something that you said. "If you are intolerant in exactly the same ways that we are, then you are tolerant. If you are more or less tolerant than that, then you're intolerant."
- bitwize 6y ago
  It's slightly more complicated than that. "Tolerant" means you support the advancement of marginalized groups in word and deed. "Marginalized groups" roughly means BIPOC, LGBTQ, and (depending on circumstances) sometimes women. "Intolerant" means you effectively support the continued oppression of these groups in word and deed, irrespective of what your actual opinions and motivations truly are. You cannot be neutral or indecisive; per Desmond Tutu, to do so is to choose the side of the oppressor. But again, it all boils down to membership in these specific identity groups and their perceived need for protection.
  - kazinator 6y ago
    > to do so is to choose the side of the oppressor In other words, the old "if you're not with us, you're against us". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_aga... I see Tutu cited there.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

greggyb 6y ago

I see the paradox of tolerance come up from time to time, and often with links to Wikipedia, usually implying that intolerance should be suppressed. A perusal of the literature around the topic suggests that moral philosophical consensus is that intolerance should, in fact, be tolerated except in cases of imminent danger to the tolerant society or individuals in it. (Note: I cannot tell from your post where you fall on this point. This is a more general response on the paradox of tolerance as I typically see it in this sort of context.) From the section of Popper in the Wikipedia article: > 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. Rather, he claims that: > we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary... Thus, tolerance of intolerance is the default, with suppression of intolerance reserved as a last resort. From the article (original emphasis): > Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed > Thomas Jefferson had already addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilise the United States and its unity, saying, "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Another moral philosopher, Rawls, agrees that tolerance should be the default, and suppression of intolerance used only as a last resort (emphasis mine): > In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concluded in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant ... Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance .... More Rawls: > This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." In the Wikipedia article, there are several examples of people calling out the hypocrisy of tolerating intolerant viewpoints, but there are no claims that the default stance against intolerance in a tolerant society should be suppression. EDIT: added a missing subordinate clause to clarify the first paragraph.

kazinator 6y ago

But Richard Stallman is not intolerant! The issue is that he's too tolerant. And this is the crux. There exists kind of secondary tolerance paradox in liberal politics whereby you're branded as intolerant simply for being excessively tolerant, as evidenced by something that you said. "If you are intolerant in exactly the same ways that we are, then you are tolerant. If you are more or less tolerant than that, then you're intolerant."

bitwize 6y ago
It's slightly more complicated than that. "Tolerant" means you support the advancement of marginalized groups in word and deed. "Marginalized groups" roughly means BIPOC, LGBTQ, and (depending on circumstances) sometimes women. "Intolerant" means you effectively support the continued oppression of these groups in word and deed, irrespective of what your actual opinions and motivations truly are. You cannot be neutral or indecisive; per Desmond Tutu, to do so is to choose the side of the oppressor. But again, it all boils down to membership in these specific identity groups and their perceived need for protection.
- kazinator 6y ago
  > to do so is to choose the side of the oppressor In other words, the old "if you're not with us, you're against us". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_aga... I see Tutu cited there.