5 ms·

"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,

by f1yght 4y ago

"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."

beaned 4y ago
This sounds like a poetic way of justifying the pretense of tolerance while not actually being that, and using it as a symbol to mask the same behavior it is on the surface condemning.
- bryant 4y ago
  > This sounds like a poetic way of justifying the pretense of tolerance while not actually being that, and using it as a symbol to mask the same behavior it is on the surface condemning. This sounds like a handwavey dismissal of a well understood paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - beaned 4y ago
    The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want, and it creates a new problem: of becoming a slippery slope not against "intolerance" in itself, but a bucket category that is gradually filled with anything and everything slightly distasteful to the morally superior or elite.
    - eganist 4y ago
      > The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want I'm having a hard time understanding this given how fixed the definition of "intolerance of intolerance" is. Can you help me understand how you're receiving it?
      - beaned 4y ago
        I would say that there are people trying to live this very philosophy already, and we can see what actions it has resulted in practically in the real world. For example, Twitter is absolutely staffed and run by people who I believe would wholeheartedly agree with the posted quote. What types of rules regarding intolerance does their platform employ? One example of something it has banned is The Babylon Bee, for this piece of satire calling Rachel Levine the Man of the Year: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... Now you tell me, is that intolerance? Is it speech that should be censored? Is removing this type of satire something that you believe is philosophically aligned with the original quote? Meanwhile, Twitter still allows members of the Taliban to post. Do you think they're more, or less tolerant than the Babylon Bee? "Intolerance" is such a fuzzy concept. Intolerance of what? You can propose any crazy idea and when people disagree with it, say they're being intolerant. If I don't want my young children to go to schools that are staffed by ex sex-offenders, on the basis that employing them in that role is a great example of how people can be re-introduced into society and embraced empathetically, am I "intolerant" of something? If I voice that opinion on social media, should it be removed? It's not a real example right now, but that's the direction we're headed in.
eigenrick 4y ago
Great quote, but it's out of context unless you use the whole thing. Specifically the qualifier where suppression should be used where people adamantly refuse rational argument and attempt to suppress the engagement of rational argument by violent force. "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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- jwond 4y ago
  > 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 Sounds kind of familiar
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people - maybe there is, I don't know"
    - eigenrick 4y ago
      Touché :)
  - eigenrick 4y ago
    If people are participating in social media, then by that very nature, it doesn't qualify. If people want to yell "Fake News" on social media, then, they're participating in the debate.
HKH2 4y ago
Where does tolerance come from?

by f1yght 4y ago

beaned 4y ago

This sounds like a poetic way of justifying the pretense of tolerance while not actually being that, and using it as a symbol to mask the same behavior it is on the surface condemning.

bryant 4y ago
> This sounds like a poetic way of justifying the pretense of tolerance while not actually being that, and using it as a symbol to mask the same behavior it is on the surface condemning. This sounds like a handwavey dismissal of a well understood paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- beaned 4y ago
  The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want, and it creates a new problem: of becoming a slippery slope not against "intolerance" in itself, but a bucket category that is gradually filled with anything and everything slightly distasteful to the morally superior or elite.
  - eganist 4y ago
    > The problem even with the paradox is that you can define "intolerant" as anything you want I'm having a hard time understanding this given how fixed the definition of "intolerance of intolerance" is. Can you help me understand how you're receiving it?
    - beaned 4y ago
      I would say that there are people trying to live this very philosophy already, and we can see what actions it has resulted in practically in the real world. For example, Twitter is absolutely staffed and run by people who I believe would wholeheartedly agree with the posted quote. What types of rules regarding intolerance does their platform employ? One example of something it has banned is The Babylon Bee, for this piece of satire calling Rachel Levine the Man of the Year: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... Now you tell me, is that intolerance? Is it speech that should be censored? Is removing this type of satire something that you believe is philosophically aligned with the original quote? Meanwhile, Twitter still allows members of the Taliban to post. Do you think they're more, or less tolerant than the Babylon Bee? "Intolerance" is such a fuzzy concept. Intolerance of what? You can propose any crazy idea and when people disagree with it, say they're being intolerant. If I don't want my young children to go to schools that are staffed by ex sex-offenders, on the basis that employing them in that role is a great example of how people can be re-introduced into society and embraced empathetically, am I "intolerant" of something? If I voice that opinion on social media, should it be removed? It's not a real example right now, but that's the direction we're headed in.

eigenrick 4y ago

Great quote, but it's out of context unless you use the whole thing. Specifically the qualifier where suppression should be used where people adamantly refuse rational argument and attempt to suppress the engagement of rational argument by violent force. "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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

jwond 4y ago
> 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 Sounds kind of familiar
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people - maybe there is, I don't know"
  - eigenrick 4y ago
    Touché :)
- eigenrick 4y ago
  If people are participating in social media, then by that very nature, it doesn't qualify. If people want to yell "Fake News" on social media, then, they're participating in the debate.

HKH2 4y ago

Where does tolerance come from?