9 ms·

Just gonna put this here for no reason… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

asfarley 4y ago
Trotting out the paradox of tolerance isn't an auto-win for pro-censorship "anti-facism" arguments. Imagine, one day, one of your own beliefs becomes lumped under the umbrella of facism. Imagine that you disagree with this categorization, but nonetheless, the categorization is made. How would you feel about someone telling you about the paradox of tolerance in this case? Don't you think it's a bit more complicated than this?
- swivelmaster 4y ago
  Yes it’s more complicated, obviously, but OP was implying that any censorship at all equates to hypocritical intolerance, which is a simplistic absolutist position.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    This (that is, PayPal's TOS fines) isn't censorship. It's punishment for deeds that PayPal may hand down on a whim.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
- bergenty 4y ago
  I’m willing to take the chance with slightly eager censorship than rampant fascism. It’s a literal no brainer and it’s disingenuous for you to ignore that.
  - swivelmaster 4y ago
    Yes, exactly, thank you. Framing every mention of the paradox of intolerance as some kind of slippery slope to totalitarianism isn't constructive or realistic, and basically misses the point of it being called a paradox in the first place.
  - jimlongton 4y ago
    > rampant fascism Honest question - do Americans really believe fascism is increasing? By most (all?) metrics Western societies are radically more tolerant on racial, LGBT and religious issues than even 2 decades ago.
    - swivelmaster 4y ago
      This isn't the only way to measure it, and IMO not appropriate right now. The real problem is the balance of political opinion taken as a whole; The percentage of the population that holds what one might call far-right fascist views seem to be higher than it's been in the last 50 years if you assume that voters' views are more or less aligned with the politicians they vote for. Assuming that just because Things Are Okay Now that there's no problem is exactly how we got Trump elected in 2016, and why Italy, Brazil, and the Philippines have all elected far-right or outright fascist leaders since then as well. Also consider that Republicans have been perfecting a legal minority rule for decades via gerrymandering, court-packing, closing polling locations, enacting (unnecessarily) stricter voting requirements, and focusing on winning states with disproportionate federal representation by population count, and are now proposing state-wide abortion bans, taking over school boards to ban books and alter health and science curricula, and more. This is all to say that even though the majority of Americans ARE far more tolerant than they were before, the fascists or fascist-adjacent contingent have been not only been growing, but have been amassing power at a rate disproportionate to their size.
      - soundnote 4y ago
        swivelmaster 4y ago
        soundnote 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - inawarminister 4y ago
    What kind of fascism? The one where corporations run rampant in alliance with the state? Why, sounds like what's going on here.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      No just regular right wing fascism with majority rule and violence and disenfranchisement of minorities.
      - inawarminister 4y ago
        I see, compared to left wing fascism with majority rule of violence and disenfranchisement of class minorities. Thank you, I will update my fascism definition card.
        swivelmaster 4y ago
        Class minorities? You mean the super rich?
        inawarminister 4y ago
        Not just the super rich as Pol Pot and Lenin showed...
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Nice false dichotomy.
boredumb 4y ago
that 4y ago
This kind of rejoinder has always bothered me, because this action can be used by anyone, depending on the framing. It could be valid in the sense I think you are using it, but for example it can be used to argue the opposite: "freedom of speech is so important that paradoxically, the government must ban a small part of it (of those who want to restrict it, like Paypal and HN commenters) to preserve the rest."
- swivelmaster 4y ago
  If the argument could be valid the way I’m using it, then the rest of your comment is just playing devil’s advocate. That’s not very constructive (and kind of a slippery slope fallacy of an argument)
  - that 4y ago
    Well, it makes a difference when trying to convince in good faith. If an argument can be used to prove contradictory positions depending on framing, then citing that argument as if it is conclusive without that missing framing is wrong. Assuming a person making this mistake is acting in good faith, pointing this out is constructive, and allows the opportunity to complete the argument with by adding missing framing. FYI it would be a frame-dependent 'Proving too much' fallacy, not a 'slippery slope': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much
    - swivelmaster 4y ago
      I appreciate the reference to the 'proving too much' fallacy which tbh I haven't seen mentioned before. I think there's a misperception (in most responses) that I'm bringing up the paradox as a complete justification for PayPal's actions, which I'm not. Rather, it's a direct argument against OP's apparently free-speech absolutist position. Essentially, so many people here on HN are saying "how dare anybody draw the line anywhere, because the act of drawing the line is actually a form of oppression." Perhaps from the perspective of someone who thinks purely like an engineer, this black-and-white framing of the issue makes perfect sense. But by the measure of real-world consequences, that's simply not true and perhaps it just takes some time and life experience to realize that. It did for me - I used to be much more of an absolutist on this stuff but I've seen, over the last three decades, how conservatives have used misinformation to change public opinion on issues that should be clear-cut. Simply arguing against them doesn't work because it's much easier to spread emotionally-charged falsehoods than to sit people down and give them the much longer, more complex, correct information. And to a point you made, it's much more difficult now than it ever was to know if anyone's making the free speech absolutist argument in good faith, because the internet is now rife with people who spend time in the chan communities and are completely aware that "pro free speech" is an easy and effective proxy for "I can share my Nazi-adjacent views with no consequences" that easily tricks moderates into fighting for them.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
The paradox of tolerance has two fairly straightforward issues: 1) It’s a blanket justification of suspending the rules when you believe the rules to be threatened, which devolves to “the most fearful have the fewest restrictions on their behavior” which I’m sure you can see is a problematic paradigm. 2) People often take it as a given that the assumption in the paradox of tolerance, that “tolerance fosters intolerance” is true but that’s not actually clear at all. It might as easily be untrue, or more untrue than not. It could be backwards for all anyone knows.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  > 1) It’s a blanket justification of suspending the rules when you believe the rules to be threatened, which devolves to “the most fearful have the fewest restrictions on their behavior” which I’m sure you can see is a problematic paradigm. That's an incredibly eloquent way to put it. I'm going to use that going forward with your permission. I've been saying for years, it feels like many orgs in the US are run by cowards, NIMBYs and BANANAs, so the pace of change is abysmal. You can watch your grandkids grow old before those kinds of people ever agree to make a change.
tablespoon 4y ago
>> "Sole discretion" basically means if they don't like you or your activity or speech for any reason, they get to fine you and punish you. >> That sure sounds like intolerance to me. Otherwise what are they tolerating? > Just gonna put this here for no reason… > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Since you aren't being very clear, I'm going to assume your point is that the "Paradox of tolerance" justifies PayPal's actions. That's obviously missing the point. IIRC, the "Paradox of tolerance" only argues for intolerance in very specific circumstances, not a intolerance at your "sole discretion" of categories of things you find odious.

asfarley 4y ago

Trotting out the paradox of tolerance isn't an auto-win for pro-censorship "anti-facism" arguments. Imagine, one day, one of your own beliefs becomes lumped under the umbrella of facism. Imagine that you disagree with this categorization, but nonetheless, the categorization is made. How would you feel about someone telling you about the paradox of tolerance in this case? Don't you think it's a bit more complicated than this?

swivelmaster 4y ago
Yes it’s more complicated, obviously, but OP was implying that any censorship at all equates to hypocritical intolerance, which is a simplistic absolutist position.
- falcolas 4y ago
  This (that is, PayPal's TOS fines) isn't censorship. It's punishment for deeds that PayPal may hand down on a whim.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
bergenty 4y ago
I’m willing to take the chance with slightly eager censorship than rampant fascism. It’s a literal no brainer and it’s disingenuous for you to ignore that.
- swivelmaster 4y ago
  Yes, exactly, thank you. Framing every mention of the paradox of intolerance as some kind of slippery slope to totalitarianism isn't constructive or realistic, and basically misses the point of it being called a paradox in the first place.
- jimlongton 4y ago
  > rampant fascism Honest question - do Americans really believe fascism is increasing? By most (all?) metrics Western societies are radically more tolerant on racial, LGBT and religious issues than even 2 decades ago.
  - swivelmaster 4y ago
    This isn't the only way to measure it, and IMO not appropriate right now. The real problem is the balance of political opinion taken as a whole; The percentage of the population that holds what one might call far-right fascist views seem to be higher than it's been in the last 50 years if you assume that voters' views are more or less aligned with the politicians they vote for. Assuming that just because Things Are Okay Now that there's no problem is exactly how we got Trump elected in 2016, and why Italy, Brazil, and the Philippines have all elected far-right or outright fascist leaders since then as well. Also consider that Republicans have been perfecting a legal minority rule for decades via gerrymandering, court-packing, closing polling locations, enacting (unnecessarily) stricter voting requirements, and focusing on winning states with disproportionate federal representation by population count, and are now proposing state-wide abortion bans, taking over school boards to ban books and alter health and science curricula, and more. This is all to say that even though the majority of Americans ARE far more tolerant than they were before, the fascists or fascist-adjacent contingent have been not only been growing, but have been amassing power at a rate disproportionate to their size.
    - soundnote 4y ago
      - swivelmaster 4y ago
        soundnote 4y ago
        [flagged]
- inawarminister 4y ago
  What kind of fascism? The one where corporations run rampant in alliance with the state? Why, sounds like what's going on here.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    No just regular right wing fascism with majority rule and violence and disenfranchisement of minorities.
    - inawarminister 4y ago
      I see, compared to left wing fascism with majority rule of violence and disenfranchisement of class minorities. Thank you, I will update my fascism definition card.
      - swivelmaster 4y ago
        Class minorities? You mean the super rich?
        inawarminister 4y ago
        Not just the super rich as Pol Pot and Lenin showed...
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Nice false dichotomy.

boredumb 4y ago

that 4y ago

This kind of rejoinder has always bothered me, because this action can be used by anyone, depending on the framing. It could be valid in the sense I think you are using it, but for example it can be used to argue the opposite: "freedom of speech is so important that paradoxically, the government must ban a small part of it (of those who want to restrict it, like Paypal and HN commenters) to preserve the rest."

swivelmaster 4y ago
If the argument could be valid the way I’m using it, then the rest of your comment is just playing devil’s advocate. That’s not very constructive (and kind of a slippery slope fallacy of an argument)
- that 4y ago
  Well, it makes a difference when trying to convince in good faith. If an argument can be used to prove contradictory positions depending on framing, then citing that argument as if it is conclusive without that missing framing is wrong. Assuming a person making this mistake is acting in good faith, pointing this out is constructive, and allows the opportunity to complete the argument with by adding missing framing. FYI it would be a frame-dependent 'Proving too much' fallacy, not a 'slippery slope': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much
  - swivelmaster 4y ago
    I appreciate the reference to the 'proving too much' fallacy which tbh I haven't seen mentioned before. I think there's a misperception (in most responses) that I'm bringing up the paradox as a complete justification for PayPal's actions, which I'm not. Rather, it's a direct argument against OP's apparently free-speech absolutist position. Essentially, so many people here on HN are saying "how dare anybody draw the line anywhere, because the act of drawing the line is actually a form of oppression." Perhaps from the perspective of someone who thinks purely like an engineer, this black-and-white framing of the issue makes perfect sense. But by the measure of real-world consequences, that's simply not true and perhaps it just takes some time and life experience to realize that. It did for me - I used to be much more of an absolutist on this stuff but I've seen, over the last three decades, how conservatives have used misinformation to change public opinion on issues that should be clear-cut. Simply arguing against them doesn't work because it's much easier to spread emotionally-charged falsehoods than to sit people down and give them the much longer, more complex, correct information. And to a point you made, it's much more difficult now than it ever was to know if anyone's making the free speech absolutist argument in good faith, because the internet is now rife with people who spend time in the chan communities and are completely aware that "pro free speech" is an easy and effective proxy for "I can share my Nazi-adjacent views with no consequences" that easily tricks moderates into fighting for them.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

The paradox of tolerance has two fairly straightforward issues: 1) It’s a blanket justification of suspending the rules when you believe the rules to be threatened, which devolves to “the most fearful have the fewest restrictions on their behavior” which I’m sure you can see is a problematic paradigm. 2) People often take it as a given that the assumption in the paradox of tolerance, that “tolerance fosters intolerance” is true but that’s not actually clear at all. It might as easily be untrue, or more untrue than not. It could be backwards for all anyone knows.

antisthenes 4y ago
> 1) It’s a blanket justification of suspending the rules when you believe the rules to be threatened, which devolves to “the most fearful have the fewest restrictions on their behavior” which I’m sure you can see is a problematic paradigm. That's an incredibly eloquent way to put it. I'm going to use that going forward with your permission. I've been saying for years, it feels like many orgs in the US are run by cowards, NIMBYs and BANANAs, so the pace of change is abysmal. You can watch your grandkids grow old before those kinds of people ever agree to make a change.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> "Sole discretion" basically means if they don't like you or your activity or speech for any reason, they get to fine you and punish you. >> That sure sounds like intolerance to me. Otherwise what are they tolerating? > Just gonna put this here for no reason… > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Since you aren't being very clear, I'm going to assume your point is that the "Paradox of tolerance" justifies PayPal's actions. That's obviously missing the point. IIRC, the "Paradox of tolerance" only argues for intolerance in very specific circumstances, not a intolerance at your "sole discretion" of categories of things you find odious.