5 ms·

The idea that seems to have been disproven is that trade liberalization will lead to political liberalization. Turns out you just end up with super rich dictato

• Tade0 4y ago
  It's not paradoxical if you treat tolerance as a peace treaty instead of a moral position. Because, ultimately, it is the former rather than the latter.
  • diputsmonro 4y ago
    That's an excellent way to put it. The "paradox" branding has always seemed flawed to me, like it's making the concept more complicated than it needs to be and opening up the position to claims of hypocrisy . But tolerance doesn't work that way - if we become tolerant of intolerance, then we've given up our goal. Tolerance should be an active effort to fight against intolerance, not an indifferent armchair theory.
• dingusdew 4y ago
  For those unfamiliar with the concept of the Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance "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." -Karl Popper
  • golemotron 4y ago
    Popper was flawed on this. He neglected the game theory aspect of his maxim. Each side of a conflict sees themselves as the tolerant ones facing intolerance, so it just escalates or plays to a draw, a standing conflict.
    • api 4y ago
      That happens if you have fat ends and a smaller center. Unfortunately that's increasingly the case with US political polarization.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • LarryMullins 4y ago
        If you follow that philosophy on intolerance, escalating polarization is the inevitable result. A small few people on the extreme ends being intolerable to each other put on a show of conflict that draws more people into the conflict.
• cle 4y ago
  > The only way to stop this is to paradoxically be incredibly intolerant to the intolerant. I don't see this playing out well either. Instead, the subjective definition of "intolerance" stretches to the point where it becomes "stuff I don't like", resulting in continually-increasing polarization, with groups becoming more intolerant to other groups because those other groups are "intolerant" towards them. There is no simplistic algorithm describing "a way to stop this". These are complex social phenomena...emergent behavior in an overwhelmingly complex system with 8 billion non-rational actors. Karl Popper was a genius, but I think he's wrong on this.
• lordfrito 4y ago
  > The only way to stop this is to paradoxically be incredibly intolerant to the intolerant. Keep in mind this is geopolitics, not national politics. Geopolitics is playground rules. There are no adults around to complain to. It's lawlessness. Might makes right. That's the way it's always been. Look at the Russia situation. They want what they want. You can't talk them out of it, except by force. Playground rules. Hopefully the Ukraine conflict remains small. The fact we have a "western liberal rules based world order" at all is kind of a miracle, largely put in place based by the major world powers after the lessons learned in WWII. The winners of that war agreed to follow a general set of common rules and principles between nations, and it's kept the us out of major world conflicts for close to 80 years. We don't have to agree with Russia/China on value systems, we just need to agree to leave each other alone on the playground. Trade helps nations get along, as both then have skin in the "peace" game, we both have something to lose by going to war. The fact that there's a pull back from global trade is a sign that we're no longer getting along, and lines are being drawn on the playground. As was said here elsewhere, China and Russia are "rocking the boat" so to speak. They want to redefine who owns the parts of the playground nearby them. Trade will necessarily pull back, as nations can't be vulnerable to other nations on the playground looking to pick a fight. Hopefully sanity prevails, and China/Russia realize it's better for them to stay within established playground lines, and then trade will resume. Geopolitics is an ugly business. Little room for idealism like "tolerance" and "diversity". You save that kind of idealism for national politics and policy (making your own country better). It's not about tolerance for China. It's about avoiding major world conflict. Before we go knocking geopolitics, remember that keeping the world at peace allows everyone to improve conditions at home. We mind our house, EU minds theirs, China theirs, etc. That's a pretty good/stable arrangement.