8 ms·

Read Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" to see why this is the case: https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html h

Read Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" to see why this is the case: https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repr... The tl;dr is that if you actually want to move toward a society of free and equal human beings and eliminate oppression, "free speech for all" is not how you go about it. One side of the political spectrum supports equality and emancipation, the other is opposed to it. Therefore the speech of one side must be tolerated and supported; the speech of the other must be squelched and restricted. The internet has had its time to experiment with free speech for all, and now we have Nazis. Social media companies saw greater value in muzzling the Nazis than they did in hewing to outdated libertarian internet values.

nostromo 4y ago
This is the exact logic used by Joseph McCarthy, and I think it's safe to say that was a failed experiment. > Therefore the speech of one side must be tolerated and supported; the speech of the other must be squelched and restricted. This is actually how you get Nazis. You know, the real ones that existed before the internet. Not 4chan weebs trolling boomers online, but the ones that would jail or kill you for having the wrong opinion or wrong affiliation.
- ska 4y ago
  That seems a-historical. The way you get the real nazis is by not acting soon enough when they target/vilify/'other' marginalized groups, or attempting to get a foothold in political institutions.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    It is ahistorical. Germany outlawed Nazi ideology and went 80 years without renazifying; the danger of such was very real after WWII. Marcuse, a German Jew, was considering the real, immediate, terrifying problem of how to prevent another Holocaust.
    - nostromo 4y ago
      You're cherry picking. Look at Joseph McCarthy and see a counter-example. He used the exact same logic: to prevent a Soviet-style totalitarian government in the US, we had to be intolerant of everyone left of mainstream Democrats. It destroyed many peoples' lives, most of who were not at all sympathetic to Soviet-style communism. Similar to your example, we could also argue that McCarthy was indeed effective at preventing Soviet-style communism in America (since the US still has free speech and there has not been another holocaust). But in both cases we don't have convincing evidence that suppressing speech was actually helpful.
      - woooooo 4y ago
        Worth adding on that McCarthy knew exactly what he was doing and didn't care. It raised his profile. (Source: master of the senate, caro) Those who validate dirty pool in pursuit of the greater good will always be enabling people like that.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        Being moderate is a delicate balance where foes seek power in whatever way possible. With this said I get quite concerned when someone says it's their freedom to plot the end of my existence.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Germany still has plenty of open Nazis for all their efforts at censorship. Something like the infamous march in Charlottesville was breaking news when it happened precisely because it's so unusual, but much larger neo-Nazi marches happen in Germany on a regular basis.
trillic 4y ago
A bit of a paradox, but a tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It's a logical contradiction. There seems to be some overloading of the word "tolerance".
  - petermcneeley 4y ago
    Yes such overloading leads to paradoxes. My favorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
    - drdeca 4y ago
      Huh, does the unexpected hanging paradox come from such an overloading? It isn't obvious to me how it is. I don't mean that in a way to suggest that it seems unlikely to me. It seems quite plausible to me that it is. I just don't see in what way. Could you elaborate on how it comes from an overloading?
  - googlryas 4y ago
    It's not, it is just a term in common usage taken to the extreme in an attempt to be clever, in contravention of all conversational norms. I don't think there is any definition of tolerance that is mathematically sound and absolute. It would be like saying "a peaceful person would never punch someone in the nose". But what if you needed to punch someone in the nose because they were trying to kill you for no reason? That doesn't mean peaceful people don't exist, or that peaceful people need to let random people murder them. It just means that the determination of peacefulness is contextual.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    FYI, I think that you missed that this idea that "a tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance" is better known as "Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance" You can find it under that name, numerous articles, from Wikipedia on down (1). Since 1945. it's widely known and accepted. It's not an actual contradiction, most "paradoxes" only appear that way on a superficial inspection. it would be like saying, as the sibling comment did "a peaceful person would never punch someone in the nose" ... except that a society that aims for peace, and is beset with violent people, is going to have to quell that violence. This might involve reserving the right to punch the punchers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
petermcneeley 4y ago
> Therefore the speech of one side must be tolerated and supported; the speech of the other must be squelched and restricted. This sounds like a distinction between say a friend and an enemy. Sounds like a political concept I have heard before.
- cfraenkel 4y ago
  Too true. "Do as I say, not as I do." also comes to mind.
wallfacer120 4y ago
dpdpdp 4y ago
hutzlibu 4y ago
"of free and equal human beings" The problem starts with how you define those two(or any political expression). Because by many definitions, they are contradictory. Equal chances? Money gives people advantages, so all should have the same money? Even if all would have the same money, some are born smart and some are born dumb. Genetic equalisation? Pretty much against the idea of "freedom" like I know it. When people are free, some will party all day, some will work like a dog. So some will get rich. Some will get by, some will starve. Unless you mean strictly "equal in front of the law", which we supposedly have, but we all know that the one with the more expensive lawer (or any lawer at all) has a big edge. So de facto we are not even equal in front of the law. The big question is, how and what would you change about it? I would actually start with free speech, because when people cannot speak freely, they will start speaking in code. And this will just make the whole political discussions even harder, as it will blur the definitions even more. I think this is mainly what we have on the internet. Lots of talk and lots of people thinking they are right, but only little actual communication and adressing the core problems because people are mostly talking about different things.
sien 4y ago
And read Marcuse for gems like this : "They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." That is, if you oppose the expansion of government you should have your right to free speech removed. From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse Which shows the problem with idea of 'we must remove free speech for hate speech' because one of the originators of the idea intended that free speech should be withdrawn from people he disagreed with in ways that many or even most people in most Democratic states would find abhorrent.
kneebonian 4y ago
> The internet has had its time to experiment with free speech for all, and now we have Nazis. Interestingly enough did you know that the original Nazis came about before the internet ever existed, way back in the 1930's, further did you know Nazis existed prior to the internet as well. It is true, in fact one may argue that there is no real correlation between the existence of Nazis and the internet, just their visibility. But in a less sarcastic vein, I can only speak from my personal experience, but from what I see the more we try and suppress speech that some do not like, whether labeling it as hate speech, misinformation, or whatever else has produced in fact the exact opposite of the intended result, where more people are willing to tolerate actual Nazi's, question official information more readily and tolerate real racism more because the label became so broadly applied that it lost any meaningful effect. Finally I also heard one interesting theory that part of the reason one side of the political spectrum is currently struggling so much is because the other side had even their moderate views censored from twitter, whereas another side was treated in a much more lenient fashion. The result was only the most reasonable and centerist voices of one side were shared, whereas the other side had many of their most radical and vocal members airing their views for all to see, which was a turn off to many, whereas the most extermist content on the other side was hidden and squelched.

nostromo 4y ago

This is the exact logic used by Joseph McCarthy, and I think it's safe to say that was a failed experiment. > Therefore the speech of one side must be tolerated and supported; the speech of the other must be squelched and restricted. This is actually how you get Nazis. You know, the real ones that existed before the internet. Not 4chan weebs trolling boomers online, but the ones that would jail or kill you for having the wrong opinion or wrong affiliation.

ska 4y ago
That seems a-historical. The way you get the real nazis is by not acting soon enough when they target/vilify/'other' marginalized groups, or attempting to get a foothold in political institutions.
- bitwize 4y ago
  It is ahistorical. Germany outlawed Nazi ideology and went 80 years without renazifying; the danger of such was very real after WWII. Marcuse, a German Jew, was considering the real, immediate, terrifying problem of how to prevent another Holocaust.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    You're cherry picking. Look at Joseph McCarthy and see a counter-example. He used the exact same logic: to prevent a Soviet-style totalitarian government in the US, we had to be intolerant of everyone left of mainstream Democrats. It destroyed many peoples' lives, most of who were not at all sympathetic to Soviet-style communism. Similar to your example, we could also argue that McCarthy was indeed effective at preventing Soviet-style communism in America (since the US still has free speech and there has not been another holocaust). But in both cases we don't have convincing evidence that suppressing speech was actually helpful.
    - woooooo 4y ago
      Worth adding on that McCarthy knew exactly what he was doing and didn't care. It raised his profile. (Source: master of the senate, caro) Those who validate dirty pool in pursuit of the greater good will always be enabling people like that.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Being moderate is a delicate balance where foes seek power in whatever way possible. With this said I get quite concerned when someone says it's their freedom to plot the end of my existence.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Germany still has plenty of open Nazis for all their efforts at censorship. Something like the infamous march in Charlottesville was breaking news when it happened precisely because it's so unusual, but much larger neo-Nazi marches happen in Germany on a regular basis.

trillic 4y ago

A bit of a paradox, but a tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HPsquared 4y ago
It's a logical contradiction. There seems to be some overloading of the word "tolerance".
- petermcneeley 4y ago
  Yes such overloading leads to paradoxes. My favorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
  - drdeca 4y ago
    Huh, does the unexpected hanging paradox come from such an overloading? It isn't obvious to me how it is. I don't mean that in a way to suggest that it seems unlikely to me. It seems quite plausible to me that it is. I just don't see in what way. Could you elaborate on how it comes from an overloading?
- googlryas 4y ago
  It's not, it is just a term in common usage taken to the extreme in an attempt to be clever, in contravention of all conversational norms. I don't think there is any definition of tolerance that is mathematically sound and absolute. It would be like saying "a peaceful person would never punch someone in the nose". But what if you needed to punch someone in the nose because they were trying to kill you for no reason? That doesn't mean peaceful people don't exist, or that peaceful people need to let random people murder them. It just means that the determination of peacefulness is contextual.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  FYI, I think that you missed that this idea that "a tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance" is better known as "Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance" You can find it under that name, numerous articles, from Wikipedia on down (1). Since 1945. it's widely known and accepted. It's not an actual contradiction, most "paradoxes" only appear that way on a superficial inspection. it would be like saying, as the sibling comment did "a peaceful person would never punch someone in the nose" ... except that a society that aims for peace, and is beset with violent people, is going to have to quell that violence. This might involve reserving the right to punch the punchers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

petermcneeley 4y ago

> Therefore the speech of one side must be tolerated and supported; the speech of the other must be squelched and restricted. This sounds like a distinction between say a friend and an enemy. Sounds like a political concept I have heard before.

cfraenkel 4y ago
Too true. "Do as I say, not as I do." also comes to mind.

wallfacer120 4y ago

dpdpdp 4y ago

hutzlibu 4y ago

"of free and equal human beings" The problem starts with how you define those two(or any political expression). Because by many definitions, they are contradictory. Equal chances? Money gives people advantages, so all should have the same money? Even if all would have the same money, some are born smart and some are born dumb. Genetic equalisation? Pretty much against the idea of "freedom" like I know it. When people are free, some will party all day, some will work like a dog. So some will get rich. Some will get by, some will starve. Unless you mean strictly "equal in front of the law", which we supposedly have, but we all know that the one with the more expensive lawer (or any lawer at all) has a big edge. So de facto we are not even equal in front of the law. The big question is, how and what would you change about it? I would actually start with free speech, because when people cannot speak freely, they will start speaking in code. And this will just make the whole political discussions even harder, as it will blur the definitions even more. I think this is mainly what we have on the internet. Lots of talk and lots of people thinking they are right, but only little actual communication and adressing the core problems because people are mostly talking about different things.

sien 4y ago

And read Marcuse for gems like this : "They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." That is, if you oppose the expansion of government you should have your right to free speech removed. From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse Which shows the problem with idea of 'we must remove free speech for hate speech' because one of the originators of the idea intended that free speech should be withdrawn from people he disagreed with in ways that many or even most people in most Democratic states would find abhorrent.

kneebonian 4y ago

> The internet has had its time to experiment with free speech for all, and now we have Nazis. Interestingly enough did you know that the original Nazis came about before the internet ever existed, way back in the 1930's, further did you know Nazis existed prior to the internet as well. It is true, in fact one may argue that there is no real correlation between the existence of Nazis and the internet, just their visibility. But in a less sarcastic vein, I can only speak from my personal experience, but from what I see the more we try and suppress speech that some do not like, whether labeling it as hate speech, misinformation, or whatever else has produced in fact the exact opposite of the intended result, where more people are willing to tolerate actual Nazi's, question official information more readily and tolerate real racism more because the label became so broadly applied that it lost any meaningful effect. Finally I also heard one interesting theory that part of the reason one side of the political spectrum is currently struggling so much is because the other side had even their moderate views censored from twitter, whereas another side was treated in a much more lenient fashion. The result was only the most reasonable and centerist voices of one side were shared, whereas the other side had many of their most radical and vocal members airing their views for all to see, which was a turn off to many, whereas the most extermist content on the other side was hidden and squelched.