5 ms·

It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent), you pave the way for intolerance to take hold.

light_cone 5y ago
Of course, no one has ever felt to be the intolerant one in the story.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Oh, that's not true. I lived in a town, briefly fortunately, where the folks did, in fact, know they were intolerant when they ran off black families that dared to move in through various harassment tactics (horribly, mostly directed at the children since the adults had thicker skin). They just didn't care.
RattleyCooper 5y ago
>If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent) So should people tolerate people who don't tolerate the intolerant? And should other people tolerate them? I feel like Mr. Garrison's take on it sums it up really well. Tolerating someone doesn't mean you like them or support their views. It just means you have to live with them. And you kind of do, or you have to be willing to remove them from society by any means necessary. And at that point, you're kind of worse than the intolerant people so long as they aren't actively trying to remove people from society by any means necessary. I guess it all depends on how you define intolerant. When I hear the word I take it as "refuses to tolerate and will not allow coexistence". If that's the case, and that form of intolerance is what cannot be tolerated, then it's a full-circle mind fuck that makes no sense unless you put yourself on a pedestal where you're brand of intolerance is the only intolerance that must be tolerated. And yeah, I don't think that kind of intolerance should be tolerated, however I don't think it's as common as people make it seem, and I feel like people conflate too many things with the genocidal form of intolerance than they do with someone who might think something is morally wrong but doesn't actually do anything about it. For instance, I know some religious people think being gay is morally wrong but they don't care what people do or if they can get married. I think they're morally wrong for having those beliefs but so long as they don't violate the rights of gay ppl I don't see why it matters. I mean, I can judge them as much as they can judge me.
- light_cone 5y ago
  I agree, that is exactly what I think people always misunderstand about tolerance: You cannot tolerate something you agree with. That is called agreeing, not tolerance, by definition. Tolerance is the wise behavior you should have, reserved for things you don't agree with, or even detest.
sreque 5y ago
You should read Michael Knowles' Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. Political radicals have explicitly defined tolerance to mean "don't tolerate dissenting views". I don't have the exact quote on hand at the moment or I would share it, but they were very explicit about their censorship goals. The book also discusses how there has never been unbridled free speech. There has always been a standard of speech that allows some things said and disallows other things said. What's changed over time is the standards themselves, and many would argue they have changed for the far worse in recent years.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
Popper (the source of the "paradox of tolerance") was very close to a free speech maximalist. His footnote containing this often cited paragraph was a small limited acknowledgment that in some extreme circumstances we as a society must place limits on intolerance.
defaultprimate 5y ago
Who defines intolerance?

light_cone 5y ago

Of course, no one has ever felt to be the intolerant one in the story.

Jtsummers 5y ago
Oh, that's not true. I lived in a town, briefly fortunately, where the folks did, in fact, know they were intolerant when they ran off black families that dared to move in through various harassment tactics (horribly, mostly directed at the children since the adults had thicker skin). They just didn't care.

RattleyCooper 5y ago

>If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent) So should people tolerate people who don't tolerate the intolerant? And should other people tolerate them? I feel like Mr. Garrison's take on it sums it up really well. Tolerating someone doesn't mean you like them or support their views. It just means you have to live with them. And you kind of do, or you have to be willing to remove them from society by any means necessary. And at that point, you're kind of worse than the intolerant people so long as they aren't actively trying to remove people from society by any means necessary. I guess it all depends on how you define intolerant. When I hear the word I take it as "refuses to tolerate and will not allow coexistence". If that's the case, and that form of intolerance is what cannot be tolerated, then it's a full-circle mind fuck that makes no sense unless you put yourself on a pedestal where you're brand of intolerance is the only intolerance that must be tolerated. And yeah, I don't think that kind of intolerance should be tolerated, however I don't think it's as common as people make it seem, and I feel like people conflate too many things with the genocidal form of intolerance than they do with someone who might think something is morally wrong but doesn't actually do anything about it. For instance, I know some religious people think being gay is morally wrong but they don't care what people do or if they can get married. I think they're morally wrong for having those beliefs but so long as they don't violate the rights of gay ppl I don't see why it matters. I mean, I can judge them as much as they can judge me.

light_cone 5y ago
I agree, that is exactly what I think people always misunderstand about tolerance: You cannot tolerate something you agree with. That is called agreeing, not tolerance, by definition. Tolerance is the wise behavior you should have, reserved for things you don't agree with, or even detest.

sreque 5y ago

You should read Michael Knowles' Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. Political radicals have explicitly defined tolerance to mean "don't tolerate dissenting views". I don't have the exact quote on hand at the moment or I would share it, but they were very explicit about their censorship goals. The book also discusses how there has never been unbridled free speech. There has always been a standard of speech that allows some things said and disallows other things said. What's changed over time is the standards themselves, and many would argue they have changed for the far worse in recent years.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

Popper (the source of the "paradox of tolerance") was very close to a free speech maximalist. His footnote containing this often cited paragraph was a small limited acknowledgment that in some extreme circumstances we as a society must place limits on intolerance.

defaultprimate 5y ago

Who defines intolerance?