4 ms·

It's the paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), where by showing toleranc

It's the paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), where by showing tolerance to the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually keep pushing and eventually destroy the tolerant.

version_five 3y ago
Seems a lot like what's happening with the modern left, honestly. But I think there's a way around that, especially on platforms, it's just to separate opinion from personal attack. HN does that pretty well, though not perfectly. But in society people have gotten away with promoting this pretend idea that ideas can be the same as violence (or variation on that) and want to pretend that some general claim someone makes is the same as a personal attack. If we can have platforms that are mature enough not to get caught in that, I think it's possible for different views to be aired and repugnant ones to be called out.
- test098 3y ago
  except echo chambers usually lock out dissenting voices and prevent repugnant views from being called out. they can also be breeding grounds for disinformation and indoctrination, so allowing them to propagate (and become normalized) doesn't really work. this becomes especially bad when say, a young person goes online and is gradually convinced that their own failings are actually because of some external force which is taking all the jobs, or taking over the country, or some other falsehood which leads them to real life violence.
deprecative 3y ago
So don't tolerate intolerance. It's an easy solution, I have no idea why there is a paradox about it. If you allow shitty behavior to persist it will. If you don't tolerate shitty behavior in people it tends to diminish. You'll never get rid of all of it but you have to correct toxic mentalities and behaviors.
- theturtletalks 3y ago
  The nuance of what is “intolerance” is very subjective. The prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism. There are some that say removing all mentions of Nazism will doom us to replay a similar tragedy. Others say that mentioning it will draw followers. It’s not only important to draw the line, but to know who’s drawing that line. And are they drawing that line now, to further discriminate against views that don’t support theirs in the future.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism. AFAIK, German law does not forbid “any mention of Nazism”, it forbids “Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations” and “Use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations” including, but very much not limited to, the propaganda and symbols of the Nazi Party. But this does not – for instance, as controversies in 00s established, prohibit incorporation of Nazi symbols in contexts that, taken as a whole, are directed against them. The issue isn’t mention but promotion of Nazism, etc.
    - theturtletalks 3y ago
      Has the line between mention and promotion been tested? I remember hearing about some cases where the former seemed likely, but the latter was argued. I could be mistaken though.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Has the line between mention and promotion been tested? Wikipedia lists some specific cases with regard to symbols where it has, but more generally its pretty clear that Germany has not made any effort to prohibit mention of Nazis [0], even while they prohibit Nazi (and other “unconstitutional and terrorist group”) propaganda. [0] e.g., https://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/en/history/ https://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/en/history/

version_five 3y ago

Seems a lot like what's happening with the modern left, honestly. But I think there's a way around that, especially on platforms, it's just to separate opinion from personal attack. HN does that pretty well, though not perfectly. But in society people have gotten away with promoting this pretend idea that ideas can be the same as violence (or variation on that) and want to pretend that some general claim someone makes is the same as a personal attack. If we can have platforms that are mature enough not to get caught in that, I think it's possible for different views to be aired and repugnant ones to be called out.

test098 3y ago
except echo chambers usually lock out dissenting voices and prevent repugnant views from being called out. they can also be breeding grounds for disinformation and indoctrination, so allowing them to propagate (and become normalized) doesn't really work. this becomes especially bad when say, a young person goes online and is gradually convinced that their own failings are actually because of some external force which is taking all the jobs, or taking over the country, or some other falsehood which leads them to real life violence.

deprecative 3y ago

So don't tolerate intolerance. It's an easy solution, I have no idea why there is a paradox about it. If you allow shitty behavior to persist it will. If you don't tolerate shitty behavior in people it tends to diminish. You'll never get rid of all of it but you have to correct toxic mentalities and behaviors.

theturtletalks 3y ago
The nuance of what is “intolerance” is very subjective. The prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism. There are some that say removing all mentions of Nazism will doom us to replay a similar tragedy. Others say that mentioning it will draw followers. It’s not only important to draw the line, but to know who’s drawing that line. And are they drawing that line now, to further discriminate against views that don’t support theirs in the future.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism. AFAIK, German law does not forbid “any mention of Nazism”, it forbids “Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations” and “Use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations” including, but very much not limited to, the propaganda and symbols of the Nazi Party. But this does not – for instance, as controversies in 00s established, prohibit incorporation of Nazi symbols in contexts that, taken as a whole, are directed against them. The issue isn’t mention but promotion of Nazism, etc.
  - theturtletalks 3y ago
    Has the line between mention and promotion been tested? I remember hearing about some cases where the former seemed likely, but the latter was argued. I could be mistaken though.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Has the line between mention and promotion been tested? Wikipedia lists some specific cases with regard to symbols where it has, but more generally its pretty clear that Germany has not made any effort to prohibit mention of Nazis [0], even while they prohibit Nazi (and other “unconstitutional and terrorist group”) propaganda. [0] e.g., https://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/en/history/ https://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/en/history/