8 ms·

The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance? If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights. However,

The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance? If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights. However, if islamISTS or communISTS or nazISTS or anyone else decides to take advantage of a liberal society and attempt to overthrow it, systematically, shouldn't there be some way to prevent it? I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas. Of course, the civil libertarian in me says that freedom of expression should be maximized. But I also realize that there are mind viruses out there that compete with liberalISM and despise it for one reason or another. The question is, how intolerant should we be of intolerance? In the United States, for instance, we have become very intolerant of racists and homophobes. I am not talking about this particular incident.

the_af 12y ago
> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution? What if the attackers wanted to "stir the pot", to encourage violence against all Muslims as a way to legitimize their own role? "See how the infidels hate you? That's why we must continue our attacks". In this sense, what does "disallowing violent revolutionary ideas" even mean? Attacking countries suspected of hosting Muslim terrorist groups? Interning suspects in illegal detention camps? Drone strikes? What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? What if this is not about an abstract principle of freedom of expression (or lack thereof) but about not doing precisely what the terrorists want?
- nl 12y ago
  >> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas > But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution?.. What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? I think you and the OP are in violent agreement here. The OP was asking if there other ways to combat "mind viruses".
mathieuh 12y ago
As a communist, I'll give you my point of view. To reiterate: I am a communist, not a troll, and this is really what I think. I think that "free speech" as meant by liberals is harmful. I don't believe that oppressive speech (i.e. homophobic, racist, fascist etc.) should come under the aegis of the liberal ideal of "free speech", at least not until a post-revolutionary society. People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. I'm sure if you look through the history of the Parisian murders you'd find a trail of exposure to extremist ideas.
- undersuit 12y ago
  >People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. Children take on ideas to which they are exposed, adults evaluate ideas before accepting them. Suppressing opposing viewpoints is therefore treating me like a child.
  - mathieuh 12y ago
    I think you'd be surprised. I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks. And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful. In my opinion, things like being against gay marriage, or being racist are objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate.
    - Crito 12y ago
      > "I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks." What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things? Or for that matter, if we assume for the moment that one did cause the other, how can you be sure which caused which? Perhaps the FN has become more and more mainstream as a result of more and more French citizens drifting towards the right. > "And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful." I don't really understand why being an opposing viewpoint and being harmful are mutually exclusive to you. You do oppose their viewpoint (very strongly it seems), so it surely is an opposing viewpoint.
dharmach 12y ago
Depends on the level of intolerance. If some are intolerant of my existence itself, do I have option to tolerate them?
MichaelGG 12y ago
Tolerance as a concept is flawed. Why should you have to "tolerate" things? The very phrasing is combative. I shouldn't have to "tolerate", say, homosexuality any more than I have to "tolerate" the floral wallpaper at my neighbor's. It should simply be a non-issue. I've not yet met a guy I want to sleep with, but it's not like anyone's forcing me to do so. My "tolerance" is a non-entity and it's just odd to even discuss it. To say you "tolerate" something implies you're against it, but you're gonna allow it to go on. Should I say I "tolerate" Justin Bieber? That'd be pretty arrogant of me to say. As much as I dislike his antics, I, as some random member of the public, should not be able to be in a position where I can be intolerant of him. An enhanced focus on rationality, critical thinking, skepticism, rejection of magical thinking -- all these things will build inoculation against these particular shitty ideas. Unfortunately, that also means dismissing religion, deriding modern politics, etc. But as a first start, getting rid of "freedom of religion", and instead focusing on freedom of {speech, expression, association, gathering, thought} wouldn't be bad. It'd cause people to think a bit more critically of what they mean by freedom of religion and so on.
- pc2g4d 12y ago
  You may not like the idea of tolerance being necessary, but the truth is that almost everybody is "against" things that they nevertheless don't actively oppose. It's just going to happen for any society where the population exceeds one person. Tolerance as a concept has its problems, but I think it is overall helpful.
  - Retra 12y ago
    It is helpful as an improvement, not as an ideal.
- reinhardt 12y ago
  Would it be fair to say you are intolerant of religion then?
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm against special casing things and promoting the idea we have to respect lies. Homeopathy is just as bad (though not as popular). I'm neither tolerant nor intolerant of what religion people have, just like I don't care how they go about brushing their teeth. You wanna say a turtle made the world and you must always wear a hat, and that this is an undeniable truth and law if the universe? Great. So long as the government and society doesn't give special preference to that idea vs, say, flat-Earthers or geocentrists, everything's fine.
Crito 12y ago
This is a topic which has been discussed back and forth for quite a while now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ Personally I've found Karl Popper's writings on the subject to be particularly insightful and on the mark, but your milage may vary.
steve19 12y ago
Liberalism is already very intolerant of intolerance. Sadly this intolerance-of-intolerance is very narrowly focused and its goal, if we are all honest, is to change society not defend it. I could give examples of how we are letting our guard down to those who seek to destroy us... but I won't because I am a coward. I don't want to be hounded by a Twitter or Reddit lynch mod for being "intolerant" or "racist" (despite being neither). Freedom to express our views, when they disagree with the majority, has been successfully suppressed. In other words, Liberalism has won... but now what? How do we move forward? We are not in a good place. Has our society ever really believed that Great Frenchman Voltaire's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (as written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall). I can't think of a time it has. The pendulum of society swings from tolerating one viewpoint to tolerating the opposing viewpoints. I stay awake at night worrying about our civilization, not that it does me or anyone any good to do so. Edit: A little off topic, but if major societal change in history interests you I highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. Wrath of the Khans (the story of Genghis Khan) is my favorite so far http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
- pc2g4d 12y ago
  Dan Carlin also has a political show, Common Sense with Dan Carlin. It's worth checking out, too. Even if you disagree with the guy I think his ideas deserve a hearing. http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/ http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/
- pyre 12y ago
  > Has our society ever really believed "Society" is a great mass of people with varying belief systems. Most of the cultural norms are dictated from above, not necessarily by populist consensus. > Freedom to express our views, when they disagree with the majority, has been successfully suppressed. Huh? Will you be jailed for expressing your views? Lose your job? End up homeless and destitute? Get beaten up by a pack of rowdy youths? Freedom to express one's views doesn't mean that everyone else has to listen to them. If a Bible-thumper starts preaching in the middle of a music concert, should everyone stop and listen to respect his free speech rights? Is tossing him out of the concert oppressing his religious views?
asgard1024 12y ago
The "mind viruses" should be fought with "mind antibiotics", not by killing the host. The idea that "thought viruses" will somehow spread without limits (in a liberal society) is a very elitist one, and there is no evidence for that.
- bdamm 12y ago
  The trouble is that whenever I have the opportunity to deliver "mind antibiotics", I'm delivering it to someone who doesn't really need it. And the ones who need it aren't likely to listen to me. So, do you have an example of how these "mind antibiotics" work? I am seriously interested. This is a great idea, but how to execute it is a huge mystery to me.
  - lexcorvus 12y ago
    The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth. Its taste is unmistakeable, but it doesn't always go down easy. For example, learn evolutionary biology, and then evaluate the bipedal ape Homo sapiens as you would any other species. You will immediately find yourself very far off the political map. On the other hand, you will also be inoculated against the absurd shibboleths of all those who deny the truth about human nature—which nowadays is virtually everyone who matters.
    - ars 12y ago
      > The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth. Please tell me you are aware of the irony in what you say? How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not? Those people you deride are quite sure that when they know is true, and they think you are the one with the lies.
      - lexcorvus 12y ago
        How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not? Some people have a knack for it, but even then it takes practice. The tools are logic, reason, and evidence. Does that sound trite? It should. But we live in a world where, e.g., a straightforward application of evolutionary biology to H. sapiens immediately yields conclusions which, if you expressed them in an American workplace, would compel your employer to reprimand or fire you. When reporting the results of logic, reason, and evidence can get you fired, the trite becomes the profound. Those people you deride I derided no one. Calling absurd beliefs absurd isn't derision. are quite sure that when they know is true You assume a false symmetry. They are mistaken. I know this the same way I know that creationists are mistaken. Creationists may sincerely believe they are right, but it's not ironic to observe their error.
Zigurd 12y ago
Small groups of violent extremists have no chance to overthrow a modern democracy, with or without a surveillance/security state. The effect of those attacks is, however, pernicious if we let it be so. They are an excuse for authoritarians and reactionaries to build a surveillance/security state. And if a nation drifts into oligopoly and a weak well-managed "democracy lite" the pantywaist Hobbesians will defend that situation by saying "but but but... terrorism!"
trhway 12y ago
>The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance? lets ask the opposite question - can liberalism (or any normal person/society) be tolerant of the people/religion/groups/ideology/society which mass-kills people for cartoons (even if those depict a paedophilic Prophet like Muhammad enjoying zoophilia)? I think one of the worst thing one can do is to think that there is any causality between the cartoons in the magazine and the massacre, like "they brought it upon themselves". Cartoons just can't be a cause for a killing. One either understands that or not. (Such causality does exists in the minds of the killers and many others, that is the issue, people who see full or partial validity in that.)
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > lets ask the opposite question - can liberalism (or any normal person/society) be tolerant of the people/religion/groups/ideology/society which mass-kills people for cartoons (even if those depict a paedophilic Prophet like Muhammad enjoying zoophilia)? You have the kernel of the answer here. The problem is that "tolerance" is being poorly defined. Am I being "tolerant" of those I disagree with as long as I don't stone them to death? Or do I also have to refrain from saying bad things about them? Or thinking bad things about them? Murder is to be condemned by society. That's just ground truth. People who murder for religion are murderers. Their actions condemn them, not their religion. Religious motivation is no exculpation. Society has to be "intolerant" of murder and violence in order to be "tolerant" of everyone's ideas. But there is no way to prohibit bad ideas in the same way as we prohibit violence because people don't agree which ideas are bad. Having whoever wields the biggest stick choose which ideas can't be discussed isn't tolerance, it's censorship.

the_af 12y ago

> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution? What if the attackers wanted to "stir the pot", to encourage violence against all Muslims as a way to legitimize their own role? "See how the infidels hate you? That's why we must continue our attacks". In this sense, what does "disallowing violent revolutionary ideas" even mean? Attacking countries suspected of hosting Muslim terrorist groups? Interning suspects in illegal detention camps? Drone strikes? What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? What if this is not about an abstract principle of freedom of expression (or lack thereof) but about not doing precisely what the terrorists want?

nl 12y ago
>> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas > But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution?.. What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? I think you and the OP are in violent agreement here. The OP was asking if there other ways to combat "mind viruses".

mathieuh 12y ago

As a communist, I'll give you my point of view. To reiterate: I am a communist, not a troll, and this is really what I think. I think that "free speech" as meant by liberals is harmful. I don't believe that oppressive speech (i.e. homophobic, racist, fascist etc.) should come under the aegis of the liberal ideal of "free speech", at least not until a post-revolutionary society. People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. I'm sure if you look through the history of the Parisian murders you'd find a trail of exposure to extremist ideas.

undersuit 12y ago
>People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. Children take on ideas to which they are exposed, adults evaluate ideas before accepting them. Suppressing opposing viewpoints is therefore treating me like a child.
- mathieuh 12y ago
  I think you'd be surprised. I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks. And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful. In my opinion, things like being against gay marriage, or being racist are objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate.
  - Crito 12y ago
    > "I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks." What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things? Or for that matter, if we assume for the moment that one did cause the other, how can you be sure which caused which? Perhaps the FN has become more and more mainstream as a result of more and more French citizens drifting towards the right. > "And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful." I don't really understand why being an opposing viewpoint and being harmful are mutually exclusive to you. You do oppose their viewpoint (very strongly it seems), so it surely is an opposing viewpoint.

dharmach 12y ago

Depends on the level of intolerance. If some are intolerant of my existence itself, do I have option to tolerate them?

MichaelGG 12y ago

Tolerance as a concept is flawed. Why should you have to "tolerate" things? The very phrasing is combative. I shouldn't have to "tolerate", say, homosexuality any more than I have to "tolerate" the floral wallpaper at my neighbor's. It should simply be a non-issue. I've not yet met a guy I want to sleep with, but it's not like anyone's forcing me to do so. My "tolerance" is a non-entity and it's just odd to even discuss it. To say you "tolerate" something implies you're against it, but you're gonna allow it to go on. Should I say I "tolerate" Justin Bieber? That'd be pretty arrogant of me to say. As much as I dislike his antics, I, as some random member of the public, should not be able to be in a position where I can be intolerant of him. An enhanced focus on rationality, critical thinking, skepticism, rejection of magical thinking -- all these things will build inoculation against these particular shitty ideas. Unfortunately, that also means dismissing religion, deriding modern politics, etc. But as a first start, getting rid of "freedom of religion", and instead focusing on freedom of {speech, expression, association, gathering, thought} wouldn't be bad. It'd cause people to think a bit more critically of what they mean by freedom of religion and so on.

pc2g4d 12y ago
You may not like the idea of tolerance being necessary, but the truth is that almost everybody is "against" things that they nevertheless don't actively oppose. It's just going to happen for any society where the population exceeds one person. Tolerance as a concept has its problems, but I think it is overall helpful.
- Retra 12y ago
  It is helpful as an improvement, not as an ideal.
reinhardt 12y ago
Would it be fair to say you are intolerant of religion then?
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm against special casing things and promoting the idea we have to respect lies. Homeopathy is just as bad (though not as popular). I'm neither tolerant nor intolerant of what religion people have, just like I don't care how they go about brushing their teeth. You wanna say a turtle made the world and you must always wear a hat, and that this is an undeniable truth and law if the universe? Great. So long as the government and society doesn't give special preference to that idea vs, say, flat-Earthers or geocentrists, everything's fine.

Crito 12y ago

This is a topic which has been discussed back and forth for quite a while now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ Personally I've found Karl Popper's writings on the subject to be particularly insightful and on the mark, but your milage may vary.

steve19 12y ago

Liberalism is already very intolerant of intolerance. Sadly this intolerance-of-intolerance is very narrowly focused and its goal, if we are all honest, is to change society not defend it. I could give examples of how we are letting our guard down to those who seek to destroy us... but I won't because I am a coward. I don't want to be hounded by a Twitter or Reddit lynch mod for being "intolerant" or "racist" (despite being neither). Freedom to express our views, when they disagree with the majority, has been successfully suppressed. In other words, Liberalism has won... but now what? How do we move forward? We are not in a good place. Has our society ever really believed that Great Frenchman Voltaire's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (as written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall). I can't think of a time it has. The pendulum of society swings from tolerating one viewpoint to tolerating the opposing viewpoints. I stay awake at night worrying about our civilization, not that it does me or anyone any good to do so. Edit: A little off topic, but if major societal change in history interests you I highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. Wrath of the Khans (the story of Genghis Khan) is my favorite so far http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

pc2g4d 12y ago
Dan Carlin also has a political show, Common Sense with Dan Carlin. It's worth checking out, too. Even if you disagree with the guy I think his ideas deserve a hearing. http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/ http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/
pyre 12y ago
> Has our society ever really believed "Society" is a great mass of people with varying belief systems. Most of the cultural norms are dictated from above, not necessarily by populist consensus. > Freedom to express our views, when they disagree with the majority, has been successfully suppressed. Huh? Will you be jailed for expressing your views? Lose your job? End up homeless and destitute? Get beaten up by a pack of rowdy youths? Freedom to express one's views doesn't mean that everyone else has to listen to them. If a Bible-thumper starts preaching in the middle of a music concert, should everyone stop and listen to respect his free speech rights? Is tossing him out of the concert oppressing his religious views?

asgard1024 12y ago

The "mind viruses" should be fought with "mind antibiotics", not by killing the host. The idea that "thought viruses" will somehow spread without limits (in a liberal society) is a very elitist one, and there is no evidence for that.

bdamm 12y ago
The trouble is that whenever I have the opportunity to deliver "mind antibiotics", I'm delivering it to someone who doesn't really need it. And the ones who need it aren't likely to listen to me. So, do you have an example of how these "mind antibiotics" work? I am seriously interested. This is a great idea, but how to execute it is a huge mystery to me.
- lexcorvus 12y ago
  The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth. Its taste is unmistakeable, but it doesn't always go down easy. For example, learn evolutionary biology, and then evaluate the bipedal ape Homo sapiens as you would any other species. You will immediately find yourself very far off the political map. On the other hand, you will also be inoculated against the absurd shibboleths of all those who deny the truth about human nature—which nowadays is virtually everyone who matters.
  - ars 12y ago
    > The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth. Please tell me you are aware of the irony in what you say? How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not? Those people you deride are quite sure that when they know is true, and they think you are the one with the lies.
    - lexcorvus 12y ago
      How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not? Some people have a knack for it, but even then it takes practice. The tools are logic, reason, and evidence. Does that sound trite? It should. But we live in a world where, e.g., a straightforward application of evolutionary biology to H. sapiens immediately yields conclusions which, if you expressed them in an American workplace, would compel your employer to reprimand or fire you. When reporting the results of logic, reason, and evidence can get you fired, the trite becomes the profound. Those people you deride I derided no one. Calling absurd beliefs absurd isn't derision. are quite sure that when they know is true You assume a false symmetry. They are mistaken. I know this the same way I know that creationists are mistaken. Creationists may sincerely believe they are right, but it's not ironic to observe their error.

Zigurd 12y ago

Small groups of violent extremists have no chance to overthrow a modern democracy, with or without a surveillance/security state. The effect of those attacks is, however, pernicious if we let it be so. They are an excuse for authoritarians and reactionaries to build a surveillance/security state. And if a nation drifts into oligopoly and a weak well-managed "democracy lite" the pantywaist Hobbesians will defend that situation by saying "but but but... terrorism!"

trhway 12y ago

>The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance? lets ask the opposite question - can liberalism (or any normal person/society) be tolerant of the people/religion/groups/ideology/society which mass-kills people for cartoons (even if those depict a paedophilic Prophet like Muhammad enjoying zoophilia)? I think one of the worst thing one can do is to think that there is any causality between the cartoons in the magazine and the massacre, like "they brought it upon themselves". Cartoons just can't be a cause for a killing. One either understands that or not. (Such causality does exists in the minds of the killers and many others, that is the issue, people who see full or partial validity in that.)

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> lets ask the opposite question - can liberalism (or any normal person/society) be tolerant of the people/religion/groups/ideology/society which mass-kills people for cartoons (even if those depict a paedophilic Prophet like Muhammad enjoying zoophilia)? You have the kernel of the answer here. The problem is that "tolerance" is being poorly defined. Am I being "tolerant" of those I disagree with as long as I don't stone them to death? Or do I also have to refrain from saying bad things about them? Or thinking bad things about them? Murder is to be condemned by society. That's just ground truth. People who murder for religion are murderers. Their actions condemn them, not their religion. Religious motivation is no exculpation. Society has to be "intolerant" of murder and violence in order to be "tolerant" of everyone's ideas. But there is no way to prohibit bad ideas in the same way as we prohibit violence because people don't agree which ideas are bad. Having whoever wields the biggest stick choose which ideas can't be discussed isn't tolerance, it's censorship.