3 ms·

> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional gove

> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true.

krapp 3y ago
>The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
  - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
    We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
    - orwin 3y ago
      I mean, I've read people arguing for 'Swiss democracy' and 'American ballots' (because you also vote on a restricted set of laws when electing state representatives) when they talk about going 'beyond electoralism', which to me id super fair. Can you explain what do you think it means?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government This is uninformed dogma, and reads as if you've lived under a rock the last few years. But to speak to your broader point about the paradox of tolerance, we don't owe a platform to speech that advocates for killing others, which is by definition also an attack on the free speech of those others.
flangola7 3y ago
Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals. The 20th century alone is not short on case studies. Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  > Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives. So the problem isn't 'tolerating bad faith weaponized speech' but rather tolerating 'violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.' The second does not follow on from the first. Also, what is (and who defines) 'weaponized speech'? Likewise, who defines 'bad faith'?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals. The proof is in the pudding, the American system of political tolerance has an excellent track record and leads to better outcomes in the long run.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Given recent events in the US, this is clearly not the reality.
    - porkbeer 3y ago
      With all that has gone on, I think it is another example of how it works so well. Strife happens, what is key is dealing with it. And the us seems to be doing fine.
tbrownaw 3y ago
A version that might be harder to misunderstand would be that if the other side resorts to violence first there's not much reason to continue using only rhetoric. Which even still isn't a hard rule, there's a few well known examples of remaining tolerant (not trying to prevent your opponents from speaking) in the face of intolerance (your opponents do try to prevent you from speaking) and succeeding rather well.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  The 'paradox' of meeting violence with violence is the most mundane "I'm 14 and this is deep" shit. I'm pretty sure this is not what people are actually talking about when they talk when they bring up Poppler's "paradox". The "paradox" is used to persuade people that authoritarianism is okay when they do it because everybody thinks of themselves as the good guys. The whole point of tolerance is that you don't meet words with violence, not that you should be a pacifist who refuses to meet even violence with violence.
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    > not what people are actually talking about when they talk when they bring up Poppler's "paradox" Yes, that's the point. The popular way of using it to justify starting violence yourself is not an accurate reading.

krapp 3y ago

>The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.

mcpackieh 3y ago
In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
  - orwin 3y ago
    I mean, I've read people arguing for 'Swiss democracy' and 'American ballots' (because you also vote on a restricted set of laws when electing state representatives) when they talk about going 'beyond electoralism', which to me id super fair. Can you explain what do you think it means?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government This is uninformed dogma, and reads as if you've lived under a rock the last few years. But to speak to your broader point about the paradox of tolerance, we don't owe a platform to speech that advocates for killing others, which is by definition also an attack on the free speech of those others.

flangola7 3y ago

Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals. The 20th century alone is not short on case studies. Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.

Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives. So the problem isn't 'tolerating bad faith weaponized speech' but rather tolerating 'violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.' The second does not follow on from the first. Also, what is (and who defines) 'weaponized speech'? Likewise, who defines 'bad faith'?
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals. The proof is in the pudding, the American system of political tolerance has an excellent track record and leads to better outcomes in the long run.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Given recent events in the US, this is clearly not the reality.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    With all that has gone on, I think it is another example of how it works so well. Strife happens, what is key is dealing with it. And the us seems to be doing fine.

tbrownaw 3y ago

A version that might be harder to misunderstand would be that if the other side resorts to violence first there's not much reason to continue using only rhetoric. Which even still isn't a hard rule, there's a few well known examples of remaining tolerant (not trying to prevent your opponents from speaking) in the face of intolerance (your opponents do try to prevent you from speaking) and succeeding rather well.

mcpackieh 3y ago
The 'paradox' of meeting violence with violence is the most mundane "I'm 14 and this is deep" shit. I'm pretty sure this is not what people are actually talking about when they talk when they bring up Poppler's "paradox". The "paradox" is used to persuade people that authoritarianism is okay when they do it because everybody thinks of themselves as the good guys. The whole point of tolerance is that you don't meet words with violence, not that you should be a pacifist who refuses to meet even violence with violence.
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  > not what people are actually talking about when they talk when they bring up Poppler's "paradox" Yes, that's the point. The popular way of using it to justify starting violence yourself is not an accurate reading.