This just showed up on my radar and I thought it was an interesting take on why tolerant people should be intolerant of intolerance.
QuoteThe paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
This has a number of implications. For example, just how
free free speech can be allowed to be certainly falls within this concept. Seeing the rise and tolerance of fascism, racism, misogyny and homophobia in my own country, led by a clearly fascist figurehead, has led me to the same basic conclusion as Karl Popper, that we should be wholly
intolerant of intolerance.
I thought this would prompt and interesting discussion.
That it does. It has me thinking in a scatterbrained way. I may not like what the KKK in our country has to say, for example, but I have to tolerate their right to free speech. However, the KKK will be intolerant to my right to voice a counter opinion by calling me names that I will not repeat here. I can expect everything from a brick with a note tied to it with threats thrown through my window to a cross burning in my front yard. On the other hand they may do nothing at all but I fear they will strike any day.
So should i be intolerant of their intolerance? To what degree should it be enforced? Free speech yes. Death threats no. Should I be intolerant of the group as a whole or just to their specific actions?
It is something to think about.
"But it's still intolerance!!!" :snicker1:
Authoritarianism these days often uses intolerance of the other as a means to power. They seem to rise together, authoritarianism and intolerance.
Normalizing of intolerant, authoritarian rhetoric looks like a dangerous route to me. Is it an element of the population that has always been willing to tug its forelock (or wear a red hat), and is now finding a voice? Or is it mostly some vocal ideologues who're moving the Overton window, and at the same time evoking latent tendencies in some who might not have turned in that direction otherwise? Both?
I think it's realistic to say that authoritarians have been having a good few years, and perhaps will have a good few more. Opposition to the rhetoric of their supporters is warranted.
It's unlikely that governmental censorship here will work. Anyway that's not an option that's on the table in places that already have ascendant authoritarians. I doubt that corporate (large social media) censorship will either, in the long run. As of yet there is no unified standard on that front, and I think it's unlikely there ever will be one (I'd dislike being proven incorrect in that estimation). There is a range of alternative platforms available, regardless of policies adopted by large platforms.
I don't have a good solution, beyond a personal willingness to oppose certain ideas when confronted with them. Even that is conditional. I may remind somebody close to me that a particular term is considered racist, for instance, but I try to avoid making it a big issue. I've come to the conclusion that there's no mileage in fighting with family about ideology.
Just nicked that for Facebook :snicker1:
freedom of speech doesnt mean that intolerant speech should not be publicly opposed.
freedom of speech means that you are free to speak, not that you will be excused from skepticism, ridicule, and condemnation.
toleration does not mean acceptance. theres too much acceptance going around. assholez should be free to identify themselvez az such, and take the social hit that rezults.
Quote from: billy rubin on May 15, 2020, 11:45:08 AM
freedom of speech doesnt mean that intolerant speech should not be publicly opposed.
freedom of speech means that you are free to speak, not that you will be excused from skepticism, ridicule, and condemnation.
toleration does not mean acceptance. theres too much acceptance going around. assholez should be free to identify themselvez az such, and take the social hit that rezults.
I'm currently supporting an ex-atheist Muslim who has been abducted in Kano state, Nigeria. I love the rage boys who pipe up that they want to see him die!
i draw a line on lies and incitement to violence.
odious opinions are one thing, and propozals of criminal activity are another.
its worth piinting out that freedom of speech in america refers only to government cdnsorship. any private citizen is free to suppress speech of any kind in any venue he or she controls.
These sorts of social and philosophical principles are not written in stone - they are guides that we use to achieve, based on our common human experience, the best possible life. We should agree to be tolerant of others' ideas and beliefs. As long as ALL OF US agree to this, there is no problem or paradox. We have a social contract to be tolerant. You can believe or think any damn thing you want. But once you try to force that on me, you have breached the social contract, and all bets are off. It's only a paradox if you take it out of the social contract context.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 15, 2020, 11:07:19 PM
These sorts of social and philosophical principles are not written in stone - they are guides that we use to achieve, based on our common human experience, the best possible life. We should agree to be tolerant of others' ideas and beliefs. As long as ALL OF US agree to this, there is no problem or paradox. We have a social contract to be tolerant. You can believe or think any damn thing you want. But once you try to force that on me, you have breached the social contract, and all bets are off. It's only a paradox if you take it out of the social contract context.
As long as there are people one will run across the paradox. I don't know why that is. It's just that some people like to push other's buttons. They relish in it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 15, 2020, 11:07:19 PM
These sorts of social and philosophical principles are not written in stone - they are guides that we use to achieve, based on our common human experience, the best possible life. We should agree to be tolerant of others' ideas and beliefs. As long as ALL OF US agree to this, there is no problem or paradox. We have a social contract to be tolerant. You can believe or think any damn thing you want. But once you try to force that on me, you have breached the social contract, and all bets are off. It's only a paradox if you take it out of the social contract context.
Yes, though human nature in general does not seem to be compatible with not trying to force personal opinions and "truths" onto others.
Human tolerance = Take me as I am, and go fuck yourself while you're at it.
(https://i.redd.it/uedawtfzqbgz.jpg)
more than one hindenburg has been consumed by the flames of history.
There's a lot of truth to what Silver just posted.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
barry goldwaters speechwriter wrote this
how does it apply to this question?