6 ms·

"paradox of tolerance" is a hypocrisy. If you are intolerant only to the intolerant you are not tolerant, it is as simple as that.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about e.g. "defending peace". It's realistic. between Karl Popper's well-known writings on the subject, and one accusatory sentence from someone on the internet, I'll take Karl Popper.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  It's still a hypocrisy, but so what. People say it like it's a damnation of the idea. Things in life are fuzzy, that's why it's literally called a paradox. The most tolerant people in the world are not going to be ok with a 20 year-old having a sexual relationship with their 12 year old daughter because of the danger involved. That's the paradox of intolerance, that everyone has a limit, and if you have no limit, someone else will pick it for you and cause damage on their terms. We don't generally tolerate violence in the west. Yes, it's an intolerance, but it's for the greater stability of society. but I have absolutely seen people use the paradox of tolerance to argue for some shitty opinions, so it must still be dealt with care. You can imagine a KKK member using it to defend their choice of not allowing blacks to be free of lynching.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    It's ok to be intolerant at some things. What's not ok is to be intolerant and still claim to be tolerant. That's hypocrisy. Also, do not equate actions and speech - and we're mostly arguing about free speech here, right?
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        People feel very smart when making quips like this. Unfortunately for you, my goalpost is precisely the same: > "paradox of tolerance" is a hypocrisy. If you are intolerant only to the intolerant you are not tolerant, it is as simple as that. > It's ok to be intolerant at some things. What's not ok is to be intolerant and still claim to be tolerant. That's hypocrisy (Don't hurt yourself, I understand it is an uncomfortable situation for you)
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      When the only way for you to be "right" is to argue the absolutist version of the definition of a word (tolerant in this case), you've lost. Furthermore, such black and white thinking is often a sign of mental illness.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  To your knowledge, you have just used a fallacy called "Argument from authority", a popular demagogue technique. Just because someone wrote in length that white is black, white does not become black. Likewise, intolerance does not become tolerance. You do not tolerate something => you are not tolerant. You oppose free speech only for really horrible people => you oppose free speech. It's really binary, and wherever Popper wrote, it does not change this simple truth. But, of course, you can hypocritically pretend that it does.
  - tpm 4y ago
    You probably should read Popper before dismissing his ideas. If you don't want to, it's fine, but in that case it's hard to take your dismissal seriously. Like more or less anything real, this is not a simple binary problem.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      I've read him, thank you, quite a few years ago. Wasn't impressed. Some of people here who take free speech for granted do not know its value. I live in a very authoritarian country, that once had free speech, and I have seen how restrictions on it creep in. And what I see happen in US and Europe follows a far too familiar path.
      - tpm 4y ago
        I lived in a authoritarian country and think that you are now doing yourself a slippery slope fallacy. I'm also very sorry about what is happening to your country, but the material (sources and distribution of wealth and power) and cultural circumstances of European countries are so much different that the patterns you are seeing might not apply here.
    - MrPatan 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..." That's Popper. Does that sound like "we can't let people speak"? Or would that actually be more in the lines of "we should expose their followers to the arguments their leaders don't want them to see"?
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  No, it's hypocritical. You defend the Rule of Law, or Democracy, or some people's self determination. But if you start framing things as "defending peace (by force)", you may quite possibly have your arguments taken over by the people attacking whatever you want to defend. Because they can use the argument just as well as you.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
You do realize that both "paradox" and "hypocrisy" have the same basic definition, don't you? They both mean "self-contradictory", the biggest difference is in connotation, not meaning.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  No. These words do not have the same basic definition. Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. [0] Paradox: A statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless be true. [1] Every time I see someone here mentioning someone the paradox of tolerance, it is to support restriction of speech for someone else. (someone really bad, of course - fascist, antivaxer, racist, you name it), and these people always hypocritically consider that they support free speech, just not for those bad people. [0]: https://www.wordnik.com/words/hypocrisy https://www.wordnik.com/words/hypocrisy [1]: https://www.wordnik.com/words/paradox https://www.wordnik.com/words/paradox
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    I'm not sure how you can accuse people of hypocrisy for being intolerant of the intolerant when they just told you they're being intolerant of the intolerant.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      Because they consider themselves tolerant, but with an escape clause, and fail to admit that this clause makes them intolerant too.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about e.g. "defending peace". It's realistic. between Karl Popper's well-known writings on the subject, and one accusatory sentence from someone on the internet, I'll take Karl Popper.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
It's still a hypocrisy, but so what. People say it like it's a damnation of the idea. Things in life are fuzzy, that's why it's literally called a paradox. The most tolerant people in the world are not going to be ok with a 20 year-old having a sexual relationship with their 12 year old daughter because of the danger involved. That's the paradox of intolerance, that everyone has a limit, and if you have no limit, someone else will pick it for you and cause damage on their terms. We don't generally tolerate violence in the west. Yes, it's an intolerance, but it's for the greater stability of society. but I have absolutely seen people use the paradox of tolerance to argue for some shitty opinions, so it must still be dealt with care. You can imagine a KKK member using it to defend their choice of not allowing blacks to be free of lynching.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  It's ok to be intolerant at some things. What's not ok is to be intolerant and still claim to be tolerant. That's hypocrisy. Also, do not equate actions and speech - and we're mostly arguing about free speech here, right?
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      People feel very smart when making quips like this. Unfortunately for you, my goalpost is precisely the same: > "paradox of tolerance" is a hypocrisy. If you are intolerant only to the intolerant you are not tolerant, it is as simple as that. > It's ok to be intolerant at some things. What's not ok is to be intolerant and still claim to be tolerant. That's hypocrisy (Don't hurt yourself, I understand it is an uncomfortable situation for you)
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    When the only way for you to be "right" is to argue the absolutist version of the definition of a word (tolerant in this case), you've lost. Furthermore, such black and white thinking is often a sign of mental illness.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
To your knowledge, you have just used a fallacy called "Argument from authority", a popular demagogue technique. Just because someone wrote in length that white is black, white does not become black. Likewise, intolerance does not become tolerance. You do not tolerate something => you are not tolerant. You oppose free speech only for really horrible people => you oppose free speech. It's really binary, and wherever Popper wrote, it does not change this simple truth. But, of course, you can hypocritically pretend that it does.
- tpm 4y ago
  You probably should read Popper before dismissing his ideas. If you don't want to, it's fine, but in that case it's hard to take your dismissal seriously. Like more or less anything real, this is not a simple binary problem.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    I've read him, thank you, quite a few years ago. Wasn't impressed. Some of people here who take free speech for granted do not know its value. I live in a very authoritarian country, that once had free speech, and I have seen how restrictions on it creep in. And what I see happen in US and Europe follows a far too familiar path.
    - tpm 4y ago
      I lived in a authoritarian country and think that you are now doing yourself a slippery slope fallacy. I'm also very sorry about what is happening to your country, but the material (sources and distribution of wealth and power) and cultural circumstances of European countries are so much different that the patterns you are seeing might not apply here.
  - MrPatan 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..." That's Popper. Does that sound like "we can't let people speak"? Or would that actually be more in the lines of "we should expose their followers to the arguments their leaders don't want them to see"?
marcosdumay 4y ago
No, it's hypocritical. You defend the Rule of Law, or Democracy, or some people's self determination. But if you start framing things as "defending peace (by force)", you may quite possibly have your arguments taken over by the people attacking whatever you want to defend. Because they can use the argument just as well as you.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

You do realize that both "paradox" and "hypocrisy" have the same basic definition, don't you? They both mean "self-contradictory", the biggest difference is in connotation, not meaning.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
No. These words do not have the same basic definition. Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. [0] Paradox: A statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless be true. [1] Every time I see someone here mentioning someone the paradox of tolerance, it is to support restriction of speech for someone else. (someone really bad, of course - fascist, antivaxer, racist, you name it), and these people always hypocritically consider that they support free speech, just not for those bad people. [0]: https://www.wordnik.com/words/hypocrisy https://www.wordnik.com/words/hypocrisy [1]: https://www.wordnik.com/words/paradox https://www.wordnik.com/words/paradox
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  I'm not sure how you can accuse people of hypocrisy for being intolerant of the intolerant when they just told you they're being intolerant of the intolerant.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    Because they consider themselves tolerant, but with an escape clause, and fail to admit that this clause makes them intolerant too.