5 ms·

Is it really a paradox? If intolerant [1] societies become tolerant despite not only letting the intolerant speak, but with intolerance the dominant ideology, t

Is it really a paradox? If intolerant [1] societies become tolerant despite not only letting the intolerant speak, but with intolerance the dominant ideology, then surely a tolerant society can remain tolerant while allowing intolerant speech, because the arguments in favor of tolerance are so much more persuasive. In clearer terms, if society has progressed from state A to state B while X was allowed, how can the paradox of tolerance then claim that, unless X is banned, society will inevitably go back from state B to state A? If X was such a strong driver towards state A, state B never would have been reached in the first place. Unless of course this is cover for those that get to define what is intolerant [2] to act as censors and push the Overton window in whatever direction they please. [1] 'Tolerant' or 'intolerant' on whatever axis you want. [2] Is it intolerant to be inconsiderate of other religions? Or are those religions intolerant for insisting their taboos be upheld by others? What about describing other religions in terms that may lead to 'hate'? What if those descriptions are factual? When are you drawing attention to legitimate intersectional privilege that enables abuse and oppression, and when are you unfairly targeting a group based on protected characteristics?

thghtihadanacct 4y ago
responding to [2] depends. As a devout atheist I see all religions as silly mind play. I should be afforded the freedom of doing so just as religious believers treat me with derision. I live in a quickly fading christian country and couldnt be happier. Good riddance to bad religion.
- nhchris 4y ago
  [2] wasn't meant as a question, but as a demonstration that who is tolerant or intolerant can be, in some cases, entirely subjective. Apply some clever rhetoric to make your opponent the intolerant one, and you not only win the debate, but prohibit his view from even being discussed - otherwise, society itself will descend into intolerance!
  - nine_k 4y ago
    It's pretty objective, in the sense how violent and non-violent is reasonably objective. People who take significant action to have a certain point of view suppressed are intolerant towards it. People who dislike that point of view but restrain themselves and allow others have their despicable ways are tolerant. (And those who don't care are neither, but are considered tolerant by some.)
nine_k 4y ago
It's about as much a paradox as the problem with pacifism. Pacifism stops working once someone aggressive comes by. This is why every state, even the most democratic, has police, including riot police. The problem is that universities strive, at least notionally, to look for what's been found objectively true. For instance, portraits and other figurative paintings exist in earlier Islamic art. This is an undeniable fact, supported by multiple evidence. But this is also considered offensive by some modern people who profess Islam. They don't want these images to be shown, talked about, taught in a university, or otherwise made known. These people are citizens enjoying all the same rights and protections as other students, who might want to learn these facts. So a university is in a double-bind. If they assert their right to teach objective facts in a course dedicated to such facts, they will make many enemies within the Islamic community, and suffer the uproar from the "pro-tolerance" crowd, on campus and in media. If they step back and remove these offensive facts form the curriculum, they will suffer an uproar from the "pro-objectivity" crowd (which may have a large intersection with the "pro-tolerance" crowd, by the way). But they choose the latter, because this way they will make fewer enemies. and risk a smaller dip in popularity and grant money. The very same mechanism of civil pressure which was successfully used for various things me and you (hopefully) consider good, like women suffrage and racial desegregation, can be used for purposed me and you (hopefully) find problematic. Most people value social peace over some tolerable concessions to those who feel strong about a particular issue. I don't see any way around it: the mechanism is value-agnostic, much like strong encryption or firearms. While natural sciences (even biology) are currently enjoying an environment where the scientific truth is considered the most important concern, social sciences, to my mind, are in a situation closer to that from the times of Galileo or Socrates.

thghtihadanacct 4y ago

responding to [2] depends. As a devout atheist I see all religions as silly mind play. I should be afforded the freedom of doing so just as religious believers treat me with derision. I live in a quickly fading christian country and couldnt be happier. Good riddance to bad religion.

nhchris 4y ago
[2] wasn't meant as a question, but as a demonstration that who is tolerant or intolerant can be, in some cases, entirely subjective. Apply some clever rhetoric to make your opponent the intolerant one, and you not only win the debate, but prohibit his view from even being discussed - otherwise, society itself will descend into intolerance!
- nine_k 4y ago
  It's pretty objective, in the sense how violent and non-violent is reasonably objective. People who take significant action to have a certain point of view suppressed are intolerant towards it. People who dislike that point of view but restrain themselves and allow others have their despicable ways are tolerant. (And those who don't care are neither, but are considered tolerant by some.)

nine_k 4y ago

It's about as much a paradox as the problem with pacifism. Pacifism stops working once someone aggressive comes by. This is why every state, even the most democratic, has police, including riot police. The problem is that universities strive, at least notionally, to look for what's been found objectively true. For instance, portraits and other figurative paintings exist in earlier Islamic art. This is an undeniable fact, supported by multiple evidence. But this is also considered offensive by some modern people who profess Islam. They don't want these images to be shown, talked about, taught in a university, or otherwise made known. These people are citizens enjoying all the same rights and protections as other students, who might want to learn these facts. So a university is in a double-bind. If they assert their right to teach objective facts in a course dedicated to such facts, they will make many enemies within the Islamic community, and suffer the uproar from the "pro-tolerance" crowd, on campus and in media. If they step back and remove these offensive facts form the curriculum, they will suffer an uproar from the "pro-objectivity" crowd (which may have a large intersection with the "pro-tolerance" crowd, by the way). But they choose the latter, because this way they will make fewer enemies. and risk a smaller dip in popularity and grant money. The very same mechanism of civil pressure which was successfully used for various things me and you (hopefully) consider good, like women suffrage and racial desegregation, can be used for purposed me and you (hopefully) find problematic. Most people value social peace over some tolerable concessions to those who feel strong about a particular issue. I don't see any way around it: the mechanism is value-agnostic, much like strong encryption or firearms. While natural sciences (even biology) are currently enjoying an environment where the scientific truth is considered the most important concern, social sciences, to my mind, are in a situation closer to that from the times of Galileo or Socrates.