3 ms·

You do not need a strong mechanism to suppress intolerance all the time, nor autocracy, not even hierarchy. People used shaming, ostracizing and exclusion sinc

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.

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.