3 ms·

Are you aware of the paradox of tolerance?

barnabee 4y ago
Indeed. Intolerance is one thing it’s worth being intolerant of.
poszlem 4y ago
Are you aware that the paradox of tolerance is a PARADOX? Most people quoting Popper online to promote censorship forget that part. It's not a carte blanche for censorship.
jkeisling 4y ago
Are you aware of the equally common objection to “I can tolerate anything except intolerance”: that if allowed to censor in the name of tolerance, our self-appointed guardians will simply call whatever they don’t like “intolerance” and censor it? (Or “stochastic terrorism”, or “micro-aggression”, or “online harms”, or “misinformation”, or “trolling”, or “sealioning”, or “toxicity”, etc). Certainly one must draw the line somewhere. But the speech debate doesn’t end at the Paradox of Tolerance, and at this point I assume anyone who brings it up in isolation is doing so in bad faith.
Aerroon 4y ago
>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. The second part is often left out of the discussion.
dude187 4y ago
I'm very aware of the "paradox of intolerance". It's the most cited dogma used by the deliberately intolerant to excuse and even demand intolerance from others.

Indeed. Intolerance is one thing it’s worth being intolerant of.

Are you aware that the paradox of tolerance is a PARADOX? Most people quoting Popper online to promote censorship forget that part. It's not a carte blanche for censorship.

jkeisling 4y ago

Are you aware of the equally common objection to “I can tolerate anything except intolerance”: that if allowed to censor in the name of tolerance, our self-appointed guardians will simply call whatever they don’t like “intolerance” and censor it? (Or “stochastic terrorism”, or “micro-aggression”, or “online harms”, or “misinformation”, or “trolling”, or “sealioning”, or “toxicity”, etc). Certainly one must draw the line somewhere. But the speech debate doesn’t end at the Paradox of Tolerance, and at this point I assume anyone who brings it up in isolation is doing so in bad faith.

Aerroon 4y ago

>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. The second part is often left out of the discussion.

dude187 4y ago

I'm very aware of the "paradox of intolerance". It's the most cited dogma used by the deliberately intolerant to excuse and even demand intolerance from others.