8 ms·

Yeah same, the definition of tolerance is very important here. Like for example I think a lot of people would view me as very intolerant of transphobia, but I

Yeah same, the definition of tolerance is very important here. Like for example I think a lot of people would view me as very intolerant of transphobia, but I doorknocked 1000 doors in our recent state election here, so in some ways I'm very tolerant when encountering people that don't agree with me.

atoav 4y ago
Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance springs to mind where he postulates that every free society that aims to remain just that: free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. Freedom is a complicated thing, because it has both positive and negative definitions. You can have the freedom to do what you want on the one hand but also have the freedom to be placed into certain situations (e.g. tortured) on the other hand. Now obviously there is going to be a collision space where somebody wants to excersise the positive freedom to do a certain thing that hurts the negative freedom of another perspn or a group of persons to not be subjected to that very thing. Freedom in that sense is the attempt to constantly balance those two sides and allow the individual to be as free as possible, while also preventing malicous actors to take away the freedoms of others. The thing is that freedom in that sense takes constant effort and adjustment to keep alive and up date and this goes beyond just writing new laws and enforcing them. Intolerance toward the intolerant is a crucial thought if you want to keep your and everybody elses freedom as it is.
- endominus 4y ago
  The paradox of tolerance, as it is commonly argued, has to be one of the worst philosophical arguments actually taken seriously. It basically boils down to an argument from fear - We all believe in the importance of {Sacred Value}, but the Evil Ones are coming to take {Sacred Value} away! By using our own good natures and {Sacred Value} against us, they will claim power, and then destroy {Sacred Value}! The only way to stop them is to destroy {Sacred Value}, thereby depriving them of the ability to use it against us! Incidentally, here's what Karl Popper himself had to say on the matter; "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. 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."[0] The form of "intolerance towards the intolerant" he actually discusses in his essay is rather far removed from the sweeping authority to suppression that it bestows in the eyes of many of the people who invoke it. He does not recommend censoring or removing any liberties of the intolerant, unless and until they respond to rational argument by force. Unless they instruct followers to disregard rational argument as itself deceptive. Unless they are inciting actual criminal activity. The idea that some ideas are in and of themselves too dangerous to allow to exist in the public domain, that rational argument should be monitored, controlled, and suppressed to ensure that "tolerance" remains is nowhere to be seen. It is only when the methods of a liberal democracy (that is, open conversation, debate, the marketplace of ideas) fail catastrophically that Popper sees the need for open intolerance towards those who answer argument with violence. In fact, the argument of the "paradox of tolerance" is actually, you may be surprised to learn, an argument in favor of autocracy. Its whole point is that liberal democracies can't sustain themselves without a "benevolent despot". Popper was arguing against that idea. Per Wikipedia, again; "In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of despotism, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided. Nonetheless, alternative interpretations are often misattributed to Popper in defense of extra-judicial (including violent) suppression of intolerance such as hate speech, outside of democratic institutions, an idea which Popper himself never espoused." [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    You do not need a strong mechanism to suppress intolerance all the time, nor autocracy, not even hierarchy. People used shaming, ostracizing and exclusion since forever against odious individuals. The real problem is groups of such people, especially bigger ones, and preventing such groups from accumulating or a strong demagogue with such odious views from taking control. The Internet makes it easier for such people to aggregate... There also is no such thing as a benevolent despot. To remain a despot, that person must ultimately do very calculated nasty things to remain in power. If only economic exploitation. (This as opposed to a chosen dictator who can be removed from power at any time, presumably.)
    - endominus 4y ago
      >You do not need a strong mechanism to suppress intolerance I would argue that you do need one, evidenced in your examples. You need a strong cultural bias/expectation towards tolerance. You need people to understand that tolerance is a good thing, a universally positive attribute. If the cultural holds that as a central belief, it has a strong defence against intolerance. The problem with the pop-culture formulation of the paradox of tolerance is that it weakens that belief. I heard a quote some time back that I loved; the only thing harder than holding to your convictions all of the time is holding to them some of the time. Any weakness in a people's belief that tolerance is a virtue, any exception that they carve out, can be worked on, widened, and manipulated by malicious actors. The danger of this idea of the paradox of tolerance is that it naturally leads people to accept intolerance - in the specific sense that the paper under discussion is using the term, the revocation of civil rights and liberties - as normal, necessary, and right. The idea of the benevolent despot is a Platonic one that Popper was arguing against. Fundamentally, the argument that some ideas are naturally dangerous and require suppression demands such a despot - at the very least, to determine which ideas are to be suppressed. Hence why the paradox of tolerance is an argument in favor of autocracy.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      > The Internet makes it easier... The printing press makes it easier... Radio makes easier... Television makes it easier... There is nothing new under the sun.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  "Paradox" of tolerance is a narrow notion. Being intolerant of people who are intolerant only is the solution, the question is only of degree. Now what you're talking about is tolerance of use of violence, which is related to but not the same as intolerance. One can be perfectly tolerant yet willing to use force to defend their interests - perhaps even disproportional force. Tolerance is also not maximization of freedom. It's the bare minimum of allowing some people to live or not suffer odious consequences for being who they are, for what they believe and sometimes what they do. Now the thing about laws, if the authority enforcing or decreeing them is considered to be illegitimate...
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Even intolerance of advocacy of violence doesn't work as a solution as the law is enforced via the threat of violence. So any change to the add new laws is advocacy of state sanctioned violence.
  - thewanderer1983 4y ago
    >"Paradox" of tolerance is a narrow notion. Being intolerant of people who are intolerant only is the solution, the question is only of degree. So more generally this. Person x who associates with group A is intolerant of group B because they think they are intolerant of C. To me what's really going on here is tribalism and lack of respect and dignity for other humans. Person x has decided to be intolerant of a person because they have placed them in a group of ideas they find wrong. Person x then shows no dignity or respect for that individual. The respect and dignity that everyone expects to be treated with. I've just become a father and I'm getting to experience my kids learning to walk, talk and develop ideas for the first time. It reminds me that all humans start this way. All knowing nothing as we go on our journey of development and understanding in life. Somewhere along that way, some of us decide that we being part of group A are more intelligent and/or have better values then others that we have decided to associate with group B. Therefore we decide that they don’t deserve human respect and dignity when engaging with them. We have decided just to ignore them or cancel them or worse. This is the solution to intolerance?
- subradios 4y ago
  Intolerance of the intolerant is often word mincing to justify one's own bigotry. You only hear about it in reference to all five Nazis or few hundred KKK members, but never in reference to the thousands of articles about the problems with Whiteness. "I will justify my prejudices in a way that sounds nice to liberal professionals".
- concordDance 4y ago
  > free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. As you allude to later on, this isn't really actionable from an objective perspective. Some hypotheticals: Imagine a society that currently doesn't require seat belts in cars. Any statements that the government should mandate seat belts would endanger others freedom to drive without seat belts, thus all such discussion and advocacy would be banned. Imagine a society which has a law that people may use whatever pronouns they think are appropriate for other people and neither corporations, nor individuals, nor the government may infringe on this. A proposal to allow corporations to make a policy requiring people to use others preferred pronouns in emails? Infringes on freedom and thus cannot even be discussed. Imagine a society which currently has no laws preventing people from copying information and distributing it. Copyright? Not even an idea you can discuss.
  - bittercynic 4y ago
    I think this reply avoids the thrust of the argument: there's no simple way to draw a clear line around the behaviors that shouldn't be tolerated. We need a robust process, and it is bound to be an ongoing effort to maintain a free society.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance springs to mind where he postulates that every free society that aims to remain just that: free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. People really love paraphrasing Popper into saying what they personally think tolerance means. Popper did not say that a free society must be intolerant of ideas that would endanger other freedoms should they become widespread. In fact he specifically says we should not do this: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
- philippejara 4y ago
  Popper was far less strict on the matter of "opinions" as your seem to portray, I quote: "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. 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." His position on opinions is that they're all fine, as long as they remain in the plane of opinions and are bound by rational dialogue. To him intolerance is pretty much physical violence or incitement to physical violence when faced with a logical argument.
ThunderSizzle 4y ago
I dont see how canvassing for a political agenda is tolerance of opposition. Sure, you'll run into people who disagree with you, but you don't tolerate their POV and are actively encouraging political action against their POV.
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  Actually, a lot more listening happens on a successful doorknock than most people would think. Listening and really hearing people is necessary, much more necessary than making a specific political point.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  This is a ludicrous definition of tolerance of opposition, if any active campaigning for your position is considered "intolerance"
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    Also yeah, while I was actively campaigning I met many people from other parties - and the other side of the aisle, and stood next to them outside voting booths and had some nice conversations.
- enkid 4y ago
  Encouraging people to rethink their political position isn't intolerant unless it cross over to some sort of coercion. There has to be an ability to argue what a best policy is, or there would be no reason for democracy in the first place.

atoav 4y ago

Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance springs to mind where he postulates that every free society that aims to remain just that: free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. Freedom is a complicated thing, because it has both positive and negative definitions. You can have the freedom to do what you want on the one hand but also have the freedom to be placed into certain situations (e.g. tortured) on the other hand. Now obviously there is going to be a collision space where somebody wants to excersise the positive freedom to do a certain thing that hurts the negative freedom of another perspn or a group of persons to not be subjected to that very thing. Freedom in that sense is the attempt to constantly balance those two sides and allow the individual to be as free as possible, while also preventing malicous actors to take away the freedoms of others. The thing is that freedom in that sense takes constant effort and adjustment to keep alive and up date and this goes beyond just writing new laws and enforcing them. Intolerance toward the intolerant is a crucial thought if you want to keep your and everybody elses freedom as it is.

endominus 4y ago
The paradox of tolerance, as it is commonly argued, has to be one of the worst philosophical arguments actually taken seriously. It basically boils down to an argument from fear - We all believe in the importance of {Sacred Value}, but the Evil Ones are coming to take {Sacred Value} away! By using our own good natures and {Sacred Value} against us, they will claim power, and then destroy {Sacred Value}! The only way to stop them is to destroy {Sacred Value}, thereby depriving them of the ability to use it against us! Incidentally, here's what Karl Popper himself had to say on the matter; "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. 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."[0] The form of "intolerance towards the intolerant" he actually discusses in his essay is rather far removed from the sweeping authority to suppression that it bestows in the eyes of many of the people who invoke it. He does not recommend censoring or removing any liberties of the intolerant, unless and until they respond to rational argument by force. Unless they instruct followers to disregard rational argument as itself deceptive. Unless they are inciting actual criminal activity. The idea that some ideas are in and of themselves too dangerous to allow to exist in the public domain, that rational argument should be monitored, controlled, and suppressed to ensure that "tolerance" remains is nowhere to be seen. It is only when the methods of a liberal democracy (that is, open conversation, debate, the marketplace of ideas) fail catastrophically that Popper sees the need for open intolerance towards those who answer argument with violence. In fact, the argument of the "paradox of tolerance" is actually, you may be surprised to learn, an argument in favor of autocracy. Its whole point is that liberal democracies can't sustain themselves without a "benevolent despot". Popper was arguing against that idea. Per Wikipedia, again; "In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of despotism, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided. Nonetheless, alternative interpretations are often misattributed to Popper in defense of extra-judicial (including violent) suppression of intolerance such as hate speech, outside of democratic institutions, an idea which Popper himself never espoused." [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  You do not need a strong mechanism to suppress intolerance all the time, nor autocracy, not even hierarchy. People used shaming, ostracizing and exclusion since forever against odious individuals. The real problem is groups of such people, especially bigger ones, and preventing such groups from accumulating or a strong demagogue with such odious views from taking control. The Internet makes it easier for such people to aggregate... There also is no such thing as a benevolent despot. To remain a despot, that person must ultimately do very calculated nasty things to remain in power. If only economic exploitation. (This as opposed to a chosen dictator who can be removed from power at any time, presumably.)
  - endominus 4y ago
    >You do not need a strong mechanism to suppress intolerance I would argue that you do need one, evidenced in your examples. You need a strong cultural bias/expectation towards tolerance. You need people to understand that tolerance is a good thing, a universally positive attribute. If the cultural holds that as a central belief, it has a strong defence against intolerance. The problem with the pop-culture formulation of the paradox of tolerance is that it weakens that belief. I heard a quote some time back that I loved; the only thing harder than holding to your convictions all of the time is holding to them some of the time. Any weakness in a people's belief that tolerance is a virtue, any exception that they carve out, can be worked on, widened, and manipulated by malicious actors. The danger of this idea of the paradox of tolerance is that it naturally leads people to accept intolerance - in the specific sense that the paper under discussion is using the term, the revocation of civil rights and liberties - as normal, necessary, and right. The idea of the benevolent despot is a Platonic one that Popper was arguing against. Fundamentally, the argument that some ideas are naturally dangerous and require suppression demands such a despot - at the very least, to determine which ideas are to be suppressed. Hence why the paradox of tolerance is an argument in favor of autocracy.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    > The Internet makes it easier... The printing press makes it easier... Radio makes easier... Television makes it easier... There is nothing new under the sun.
AstralStorm 4y ago
"Paradox" of tolerance is a narrow notion. Being intolerant of people who are intolerant only is the solution, the question is only of degree. Now what you're talking about is tolerance of use of violence, which is related to but not the same as intolerance. One can be perfectly tolerant yet willing to use force to defend their interests - perhaps even disproportional force. Tolerance is also not maximization of freedom. It's the bare minimum of allowing some people to live or not suffer odious consequences for being who they are, for what they believe and sometimes what they do. Now the thing about laws, if the authority enforcing or decreeing them is considered to be illegitimate...
- concordDance 4y ago
  Even intolerance of advocacy of violence doesn't work as a solution as the law is enforced via the threat of violence. So any change to the add new laws is advocacy of state sanctioned violence.
- thewanderer1983 4y ago
  >"Paradox" of tolerance is a narrow notion. Being intolerant of people who are intolerant only is the solution, the question is only of degree. So more generally this. Person x who associates with group A is intolerant of group B because they think they are intolerant of C. To me what's really going on here is tribalism and lack of respect and dignity for other humans. Person x has decided to be intolerant of a person because they have placed them in a group of ideas they find wrong. Person x then shows no dignity or respect for that individual. The respect and dignity that everyone expects to be treated with. I've just become a father and I'm getting to experience my kids learning to walk, talk and develop ideas for the first time. It reminds me that all humans start this way. All knowing nothing as we go on our journey of development and understanding in life. Somewhere along that way, some of us decide that we being part of group A are more intelligent and/or have better values then others that we have decided to associate with group B. Therefore we decide that they don’t deserve human respect and dignity when engaging with them. We have decided just to ignore them or cancel them or worse. This is the solution to intolerance?
subradios 4y ago
Intolerance of the intolerant is often word mincing to justify one's own bigotry. You only hear about it in reference to all five Nazis or few hundred KKK members, but never in reference to the thousands of articles about the problems with Whiteness. "I will justify my prejudices in a way that sounds nice to liberal professionals".
concordDance 4y ago
> free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. As you allude to later on, this isn't really actionable from an objective perspective. Some hypotheticals: Imagine a society that currently doesn't require seat belts in cars. Any statements that the government should mandate seat belts would endanger others freedom to drive without seat belts, thus all such discussion and advocacy would be banned. Imagine a society which has a law that people may use whatever pronouns they think are appropriate for other people and neither corporations, nor individuals, nor the government may infringe on this. A proposal to allow corporations to make a policy requiring people to use others preferred pronouns in emails? Infringes on freedom and thus cannot even be discussed. Imagine a society which currently has no laws preventing people from copying information and distributing it. Copyright? Not even an idea you can discuss.
- bittercynic 4y ago
  I think this reply avoids the thrust of the argument: there's no simple way to draw a clear line around the behaviors that shouldn't be tolerated. We need a robust process, and it is bound to be an ongoing effort to maintain a free society.
naasking 4y ago
> Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance springs to mind where he postulates that every free society that aims to remain just that: free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. People really love paraphrasing Popper into saying what they personally think tolerance means. Popper did not say that a free society must be intolerant of ideas that would endanger other freedoms should they become widespread. In fact he specifically says we should not do this: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
philippejara 4y ago
Popper was far less strict on the matter of "opinions" as your seem to portray, I quote: "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. 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." His position on opinions is that they're all fine, as long as they remain in the plane of opinions and are bound by rational dialogue. To him intolerance is pretty much physical violence or incitement to physical violence when faced with a logical argument.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago

I dont see how canvassing for a political agenda is tolerance of opposition. Sure, you'll run into people who disagree with you, but you don't tolerate their POV and are actively encouraging political action against their POV.

tomlockwood 4y ago
Actually, a lot more listening happens on a successful doorknock than most people would think. Listening and really hearing people is necessary, much more necessary than making a specific political point.
Ensorceled 4y ago
This is a ludicrous definition of tolerance of opposition, if any active campaigning for your position is considered "intolerance"
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  Also yeah, while I was actively campaigning I met many people from other parties - and the other side of the aisle, and stood next to them outside voting booths and had some nice conversations.
enkid 4y ago
Encouraging people to rethink their political position isn't intolerant unless it cross over to some sort of coercion. There has to be an ability to argue what a best policy is, or there would be no reason for democracy in the first place.