5 ms·

It's the classic paradox -- tolerance (i.e. free speech) doesn't mean we have to tolerate those who are intolerant. See Karl Popper. https://skepchick.org/2017

It's the classic paradox -- tolerance (i.e. free speech) doesn't mean we have to tolerate those who are intolerant. See Karl Popper. https://skepchick.org/2017/08/popper-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance/ https://skepchick.org/2017/08/popper-and-the-paradox-of-tole... This is not a difficult concept, but many libertarians and conservatives seem to have trouble with it. And that includes many techbros too.

car_analogy 5y ago
I don't have a problem with it at all - as long as I get to define who is intolerant.
scantis 5y ago
I also have trouble with it. Become an intolerant society before you become an intolerant society seems like a strange premise. I think for me it comes down to the point, where the tolerant end up being destroyed. How does this happen exactly? Shouldn't we focus more on that? Are we to destroy the intolerant prematurely before they destroy us? How about just not destroying people, no matter the perceived tolerance or intolerance they exibit?
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
I'm assuming that the parent poster is attempting some kind of humor(?) since the essay actually speaks out against those who use the paradox of tolerance in the way they seem to be doing, e.g. "The appeal of this passage to those seeking philosophical justification for suppressing the political rights of Nazis and white nationalists (who, after all, are practically the definition of intolerance), should be obvious. But while Popper might at first seem to be providing a clever loophole in the traditional arguments around free speech that would allow only the most dangerous ideas and ideologies to be censored or otherwise suppressed, he has in fact only managed to disguise the problem by shifting the goalposts. Even if we answer the question of “what kind of political speech should be suppressed” with “intolerant speech,” we are still left with the same old problem wherein the arbiters of what kinds of ideologies are considered “intolerant” and worthy of suppression will inevitably be those who operate the levers of state power. ... The actual merits of any case for one group being more intolerant than another are unfortunately immaterial in the larger context; once the meta-argument is conceded that intolerance justifies suppression, the targets of the oppression will depend more on who is in power than how intolerant their ideology might actually be."
cato_the_elder 5y ago
Yes, for example, I think comments like yours which are so vehemently against free expression should never be tolerated here.

car_analogy 5y ago

I don't have a problem with it at all - as long as I get to define who is intolerant.

scantis 5y ago

I also have trouble with it. Become an intolerant society before you become an intolerant society seems like a strange premise. I think for me it comes down to the point, where the tolerant end up being destroyed. How does this happen exactly? Shouldn't we focus more on that? Are we to destroy the intolerant prematurely before they destroy us? How about just not destroying people, no matter the perceived tolerance or intolerance they exibit?

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

I'm assuming that the parent poster is attempting some kind of humor(?) since the essay actually speaks out against those who use the paradox of tolerance in the way they seem to be doing, e.g. "The appeal of this passage to those seeking philosophical justification for suppressing the political rights of Nazis and white nationalists (who, after all, are practically the definition of intolerance), should be obvious. But while Popper might at first seem to be providing a clever loophole in the traditional arguments around free speech that would allow only the most dangerous ideas and ideologies to be censored or otherwise suppressed, he has in fact only managed to disguise the problem by shifting the goalposts. Even if we answer the question of “what kind of political speech should be suppressed” with “intolerant speech,” we are still left with the same old problem wherein the arbiters of what kinds of ideologies are considered “intolerant” and worthy of suppression will inevitably be those who operate the levers of state power. ... The actual merits of any case for one group being more intolerant than another are unfortunately immaterial in the larger context; once the meta-argument is conceded that intolerance justifies suppression, the targets of the oppression will depend more on who is in power than how intolerant their ideology might actually be."

cato_the_elder 5y ago

Yes, for example, I think comments like yours which are so vehemently against free expression should never be tolerated here.