Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Let’s put it plainly.
If you tolerate something, it is implicit you disapprove of, or disagree with, the subject requiring tolerance.
People exhibiting behavior necessitating said tolerance know this. And they don’t like any reminders that just maybe they might be really, really wrong and there are people willing challenge their behavior but are holding back.
So instead of changing their behavior, they eliminate the challenge to their behavior.
deleted by creator
Ironic seeing how much lemmy has a hard on for the Hamas antisemitic terrorists
I think in the case of Hamas and the government of Israel, it really is kinda a “both sides” thing.
The problem with most “both sides” arguments is they are rarely accompanied by an attempt to correct both sides. Saying that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is what gives Hamas it’s influence isn’t a defense of Hamas’s war crimes.
Hamas is an evil, corrupt organization that intentionally kills innocent people with zero remorse, accountability, or even the false impression of sadness over the murders they commit. The government of Israel does the same thing though.
Hamas fuels hatred of the Palestinians and the government of Israel fuels hatred of its citizens. Both organizations should be abolished.
The same can be said of the Taliban, Al Quaeda, FARC, ISIS, and more. All are bloodthirsty extremist organizations that were made powerful by the West’s occupation and murder.
Go to Combat Footage on Reddit. They’re with the good guys on this one.
The “tolerant” can also be intolerant. They don’t recognize their own intolerance.
I’ve always disliked how this is described as a paradox. It only highlights a broader point found in many systems, a just system is never about “the good” outnumbering “the bad”. It’s about a balanced equilibrium, as are most relationships. Besides, allowing intolerance is not a tolerant act, that’s not the way we define that term. To make such a claim would be as ridiculous as a racist person saying they are practicing tolerance by not challenging or question any of their bigoted thoughts and instead just letting them play out.
I view it as a contract. If you don’t abide by it, you are not covered
I dislike the framing of this, specifically:
“When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant the tolerant ones end up being destroyed”
Implies that the intolerant are guarenteed victory. I vehemently disagree that this is true, and therefore would argue tolerating the bad actors is often a necessary evil to ensure that good actors are not unjustly censored. The risk of ‘another hitler’ is accepted this way of course but unless we as a society can demonstrate (if at all) that risk would be mitigated by the censorship of hate speech we have no good cause.
IMO the issue with this is that it’s a binary: tolerant vs intolerant, and nothing in between. If you think of what it is if it’s a spectrum, that’s just called “having opinions”, and letting your opinions decide how tolerant you are of others.
“I’m pretty tolerant person, but trans people should just die” is just an opinion. “Gay people should live in internment camps while they get cured of their disease”, is also an opinion. “Black people are just naturally inclined to live in slavery, it’s easier for them that way” is also just and opinion. “It’s perfectly OK for a 12 y.o. girl to marry a widowed man if her parents agreed, it’s the natural order”, look at that, another opinion. “People with disability shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce, it’s unnatural and they risk spreading their disease”, one more opinion. Where do we draw the line? Where’s the spectrum?
People easily forget that intolerance is also very selective and targeted. The vast majority of people with intolerant ideas would look pretty regular and normal most the time. The line is pretty clear though, someone’s dignity (or straight up their lives) is stripped from them. That’s not rocket science, it’s not an unsolvable moral conundrum, or a spiritual mystery. If someone’s dignity and life is being done away with, then you are looking at intolerance.
This gets abused a lot by people who claim agency over what is intolerance and what isn’t. It would seem an easy and straightforward enough distinction but in reality there seems to be a lot of wiggle room.
absolutely it gets abused. any time anyone wants you to tolerate what they want you to(defend their own tolerance), they might suggest that you’re not being tolerant enough. (suggesting you intolerant)
this means that both intolerance of reasonable rules, as well as intolerance to unreasonable rules can always be twisted as “intolerant of the tolerant ruling”.
essentially, whatever an authority establishes as being right/good must be tolerated, whereas what they consider wrong/bad will not be tolerated.
of course most reasonable people know that what people think is good/bad/right/wrong varies massively, and how tricky and meaningless this fact can make the whole idea of “tolerating the intolerant”. it certainly doesn’t help in convincing the intolerant to be tolerant, so i think it’s not worth talking about.
It’s not the paradox, it’s the common sense.
True, but not a meme. More like an infographic.
And a pretty poor one at that. It doesn’t demonstrate the concept.
Sorry sir, we only do soapboxes here.
It’s only a paradox because the creator of the infographic has oversimplified what intolerance is.
When nazis are intolerant of a minority group, or whatever their target is, are violent towards them.
When the general society is intolerant of nazis, they are not usually calling for nazis to be killed or harmed.
And the creator does not differentiate between how a government deals with nazi versus the people. A government may “tolerate” nazis when it comes to free speech, and then be “intolerant” of nazis when they commit violence, and arrest or prosecute them. The general populace, unlike the government, cannot prosecute nazis (legally), they can only shun them. The creator clumsily does not differentiate between legal consequences and social consequences.
Basically, the infographic creator is trying to both-sides this shit, when one side want ppl dead, while other side just want nazis to go away. They are not the same. Moronic, sophomoric, low IQ. Too bad this may actually work on some people. That’s the sad part.
When the general society is intolerant of nazis, they are not usually calling for nazis to be killed or harmed.
And why aren’t we doing that? They’re literally Nazis?
Because we’re not Nazis.
If ten people knowingly sit down to a meal with a Nazi, you have 11 Nazis.
There is no better response than the one you’ve given
This just kevin-bacons all human beings into nazihood.
Everyone’s a little bit racist sometimes…
Doesn’t mean we go around committing hate criiiiimes!
Ethnic jokes might be uncouth
But you laugh because they’re based on truth
Don’t take them as personal attacks
Everyone enjoys them, so relax
One day I should actually see the play that song is from…
Fuckin A, right?
Someone get on that Nazi killing detail, please.
I do not get why the war against them expired.
They are wearing and flying the colors of Nazi Germany, they should still be enemies.
If twelve people sit at a table with a Nazi, you have thirteen Nazis
https://youtu.be/goePYJ74Ydg?si=sunG6ESBoNsEsxNC i feel like everyone should watch this video
They was cool, but your thought process is a mystery. are you thinking the tolerant are green beards or something?
Just making a comparison between altruism and tolerance. It works amazingly well if everyone is altruistic, but irl that will never happen. There will always be hawks that take advantage of the fact that everyone else is altruistic. In doing so, hawks become the winning strategy and beat out the green beards. They rise to dominance and at the end everyone is worse off. The answer proposed in game theory (or more accurately, one of many) is a strategy called “Tit-for-tat”. Essentially, be an altruist until you’re met with hawk behavior, and then stop being altruistic to the hawk. I thought that was very similar to tolerance. It benefits everyone, so long as they are also tolerant but gets easily destroyed by intolerance. I don’t care too much about the comparison itself, but most social exchanges can be better understood though game theory.
Thanks! That’s awesome
Same with multiculturalism, it can’t exist by accepting cultures that won’t accept other cultures, for pretty much the exact same reasons. Yet every time I’ve mentioned it someone sees it as a “dog whistle” for something, usually islamophobia, which is just such a non-sequitur - there are branches of Islam that have no problem being part of a multicultural society, just like there are branches of Christianity that are intolerant and shouldn’t be part of a multicultural society.
That makes no sense. It’s easy to have multiple cultures with cultures that don’t assimilate. In fact, not assimilating is required to end up with multiculturalism, otherwise everyone ends up assimilated in to a monoculture.
Though perhaps it’s just stemming from the use of “accept” instead of “tolerate”. Those are two very, VERY different words.
Maybe it doesn’t make sense to you because you don’t understand the difference between accept other cultures living besides yours and “assimilate”.
removed by mod
You need to work on your gaslighting.
removed by mod
removed by mod
There are different levels of assimilation. Learning a common language helps people communicate and communication is required for anything to work, and also helps to dispel fears. Once people can speak to each other they can find common ground.
Places like the US would suck if people who came to the US couldn’t make food from different culture and were stuck eating whatever the hell is unique American… twinkies?
I understeand the whole idea and im always up to point and laugh at cringe wanna be fascist, the problem is that the term intollerance is not used with nuance, as soon as people receive critiscism ( be it constructive or not) is easy to just shout biggot or intolerance, whereas in that wouldnt really be the case.
Another problem would be what the stablishment considers intollerance or bigotry, like as easelly as there are protected groups that cant be criticed without coming of hatefull thowards that group, that could be applied the same way to the elite class, gobernment and rich people, and at least in my country it was like that untill relatively recently, (about 2 decades ago), and that is just straight up censorship and if the gobernment wanted they could jaill you (if they didnt assasinate you privately), and i understeand its simmilar in some countries to this day, without pointing at the most obvious ones or failed nations that are in constant internal violent conflicts, one example would be India for what i heard.
My point is that this type of rethoric shouldnt be thrown around as lightly as it is, since it sounds to me as more of a justification for censorship rather than a genuenly interesting thought experiment, specially since the ones that are normally used as an easy to tear down argument are the nazis, which i mean fuck them and everything they say but is this paradox really only aplicable to them?
I agree and im a free speech absolutist type. It really comes down to what is allowed. The top panel is huge as he says respect. No one has to respect anyones ideas but they can allow them to have them and relate them in private and open public forums. The right to free speech does not allow someone to enter the whitehouse to make the speech there. It just means that if they are otherwise not messing with people or breaking the law they can say or write what they want. but you can’t write on someone elses private wall or not be kicked out of an establishment for your speech. You don’t vote them into office out of tolerance or wanting to hear from both/all sides. Your own free speech rights allow you to ridicule away or whatever you want.
Its not even to that extreme imo, for example if im saying “we should kill all x people” that is just instigation on mass murder, and that is illegal, and i dont know if its actually punishable by law but saying that in a public space will definetly put you on a watch list. I meant that this is used as a solution for a problem that is already solved with laws and regulations on political speech, and comes up like rallying against “everyone who disagrees with me is a biggot since i whant to give everyone ice cream and if you disagree then you whant to give everyone AIDS” when there are more nuanced takes like people being lactose intolerant, other not liking ice cream and others having diabetes or simply whanting to reduce their sugar/fats consumption and would rather have an orange. And grouping them with the “whanting to give AIDS to everyone” crowd is just a very childish way to handle this type of isues.
And simply put speech is a conversation and intolerance as they display it. IE nazi philosophy. Should be struck down in the converastion. If a majority of a democracy is ok with the philosophy the problem is not free speech.
Except if you view tolerance as what it is, a social contract. I’ll tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.
Thus I get along great with the religious person that just wishes to practise their religion in peace, and respects my existence as a connoisseur of cock outside of it, but we don’t have to put up with the neo-nazis calling for both of our heads.
And so the paradox dissolves.
I’ll tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.
I’d only comment that it’s not just about tolerating me. I am intolerant of people who are intolerant of others, unless they follow this contract.
But then not everything is about tolerance of other people. I don’t tolerate people who litter, for example, even if they tolerate me.
That’s a fair point. I think it’s more about respecting and tolerating people’s personal agency and bodily autonomy. You don’t need to respect someone’s beliefs in order to tolerate them. I personally think religion is idiotic, but I tolerate it existing. I recognise that it isn’t my right to dictate whether someone worships or not.
It all naturally needs to work within the framework of society. You can’t force someone not to litter, but if littering is a fineable offense, then the litterer must recognise that while no one can stop them from littering, there can be consequences to their actions.
my existence as a connoisseur of cock
A penis sommelier, if you will
Phalluscionado
Worshipper of wang
Penial professional.
Fallos friend
That’s true. But it also requires that both sides have the same definition of tolerance and the same definitions of good an evil.
For instance, what if that religion being practiced believed that homosexuality is a sin, and you did not?
In their eyes they’d be justified in thinking you were intolerant of their god-given righteousness and you’d be justified in thinking that they were being intolerant of the liberty of others.
Maybe they actively roam the streets harassing gay people, maybe they have laws about a death penalty, or maybe they just talk about them as unclean. Where does your tolerance start? Is it only at words and not action? Does that mean hate speech is ok?
The paradox here isn’t to do with tolerance and intolerance, but the assertion that either of those things exist as objective view points.
The social contract is to tolerate that which doesn’t harm or significantly affect you. Someone can choose not to be gay, and that’s fine. They don’t have to “tolerate” a gay guy hitting on them. However, 2 gay guys sleeping together is none of their business. In your case, the religious person can feel what they want. When they start trying to impose that on the gay guy, they are being intolerant.
Things get more complex when worldviews start impinging on each other. E.g. the religious person can have issues with a “gay pride” parade. At the same time the gay community has a reasonable right to express themselves. The balance of these views is a lot of how the rest of society functions.
People don’t choose their sexuality. They can choose not to act on it, but that’s repression and is harmful.
We’ve got to the crux though. There are opposing viewpoints. A gay pride parade might be tolerated, but what if it is protested, peacefully. I should the pride parade tolerate the protest?
That’s where the debates and larger social attitudes. A gay pride parade, by its nature impinges on those in the area. How much we accept that is part of a larger social discussion. It is unreasonable to completely ban big public events, but also unreasonable to allow any and all, without a proper understanding of their effects.
In your case, a protest would generally be outside this. If the protesters travel in, to put themself in the environment, then they are being intolerant. Conversely, it’s not if the parade goes straight past their church, and they put up signs etc. In the first, they are deliberately putting themselves into the situation. In the latter, they are being affected by it, through no action of their own.
The orange parades in Northern Ireland are a good example of this problem. They want to march along “traditional” routes. Those routes take them through areas who disagree with them. Both groups have very reasonable arguments. Who’s rights should win out?
So, if it’s just about being in the area deciding, is it intolerant for the gay people that live in an area to protest the church daily that preaches they are living in sin?
You seem to be tying yourself in knots trying to justify what is tolerance and what is valid expression. It shouldn’t depend on where the bigot happens to be located. Tolerance is not protesting or denigrating anyone else’s right to exist. Preaching that gay is sinful is not tolerance. Marching past people who disagree with you just to inflame tensions, a la northern Ireland, is not valid free speech.
If Jews in Nazi Germany had to just accept that nazis don’t like Jews, and wellz we’re in Germany, whatcha gonna do? Would that be in line with your thinking? Or should we say that antisemitism is wrong, even when it’s within a regime that believes in it? That’s the paradox of tolerance. You don’t tolerate intolerance just because it’s someone’s belief.
Self defense isn’t oppression.
I agree with your statement, but out of context, it seems meaningless.
It’s less about tolerance of people and more about tolerance of beliefs, but more importantly actions. It requires personal agency and bodily autonomy to be sacrosanct to function. Ergo, if you wish to cut off your arm and make a taco out of it, that’s fine, but you cannot force someone to eat said taco, nor can you force someone to assist you in cutting off your arm. It’s your body, your choice, your action, and your consequences.
This means, if you have a religion where women are viewed as inferiors, that’s perfectly fine to have. You can believe that women are lesser beings as much as you want, and you’re free to treat women like the complete and total dickwad you are, but you cannot violate their personal autonomy. You cannot force anyone to partake in your beliefs or act in accordance with your beliefs.
I’d say that roaming gangs of people harrassing others does impeach on said others’ personal autonomy, and thus wouldn’t be tolerated.
Believe that homosexuality is a sin? Great. Don’t engage in homosexuality. Believe that your labia needs cutting off? Great, do it, find someone else who shares your belief and have it done to you. You may not force this upon your daughter though, your rights end where hers begin.
You’re allowed to have your god, and someone else can have theirs, even if said gods are complete polar opposites and clash with one another. Deal with it, or sod off.
Then you’ll have to take it on a case by case basis. Like with everything. There’s no perfect system. There never will be a perfect system.
deleted by creator
That’s true. But it also requires that both sides have the same definition of tolerance and the same definitions of good an evil.
It’s a similar problem to respect. If I said “I’ll show you respect if you show me respect” I could mean that I’ll give you due regard for your feelings if you’ll do the same. However, too often it means I’ll give due regard for your feelings if you’ll treat me with deep admiration.
The line is when actions are taken.
Religious people are allowed to believe and say that homosexuality is a sin.
Atheists are allowed to believe and say that religious people are stupid.
I don’t believe that hate speech is defined the same way everywhere, but it’s not really that difficult to say “we don’t legislate sin; nor stupidity.” People expressing their views is not necessarily hate speech. Calling something a sin or calling something stupid is not on par with a call to action, or attempt to intimidate a group of people.
Thinking something someone else dies us wrong or immoral is is not the same as being intolerant.
A religious person thinking homosexuality is a sin and simply looks down on gay people, but otherwise takes no action is being tolerant. They are not being accepting, just tolerating. Someone who actively tries to stop gay people from existing (through laws, conversion therapy, murder, etc.) is intolerant.
Now what if they don’t actively seek to persecute, but they vote for people that follow their religion exclusively. These people enact laws that are harmful, but these laws were not the reason they chose them at the ballot. Still tolerant? Has it stepped into active yet?
This is the issue. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
That would be intolerance since they are voting for someone who is intolerant. Assuming they didn’t know that person was intolerant and they don’t actively vote against that person in the future once they found out.
Is it still intolerance if when they voted they didn’t know? Or since they voted the politician changes their views? In your scenario it seems like wilful action is the decider. So, if it’s not wilful, it’s not intolerant?
Let’s take trump, as an example. Many claimed he was racist and misogynistic before he was elected.People called him fascist. He’s now indicted on fraud and sexual assault etc. There was a breach of the capital. Are those that voted for him responsible, or just those convicted? If he lies and says it wasn’t his intent, but most people see through it, are those that continue to vote for him ignorant or wilfully ignorant?
If it is blatantly obvious that the person is lying then they are willfully ignorant, and if they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong then they are intolerant.
If they were lied to with no reason to believe the person was lying and immediately stop supporting them once they find out, then they were not being intolerant. Hard to fault someone who acted based on the knowledge they had at the time.
Anyone who did not see through Trump’s lies were willfully ignorant because reality constantly contradicted him. But most people knew he was lying because he constantly contradicted himself and they agreed with his intolerant views and knew he was lying about anything he said that sounded tolerant.
So 30%+ of America is intolerant by your measure? Seems awfully high. That’s the paradox of tolerance. The more you tolerate intolerance, the more it spreads. It’s insidious.
Personally, I think your measure of what is tolerant and intolerant is not quite right. It’s beliefs and actions that matter. You seem to tolerate beliefs, even if intolerant, so long as the actions are within a framework you don’t think is acting intolerant. That framework will get pushed to the limit, then stretched, then breached. So, despite a different definition, the paradox applies. Allowing the intolerant to amplify and spread their views should not be tolerated. They won’t follow the rules in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t argue in earnest. They spread hatred and it grows. Tolerating the intolerance, not correcting it and calling it out allows it to grow. That is why intolerance should not be tolerated.
A religious person thinking homosexuality is a sin and simply looks down on gay people,
The problem with this is, this religious person won’t want to live around gay people and will do anything in its power to do so.
The very fact there’s now a bunch of comments each defining “tolerance” as something different but with equal fervour sort of proves the point.
Look, I have no answers, but I was particularly commenting on the assertion that the paradox dissolved if you think about it. It doesn’t. It’s not that easy, and if you think it is, you are the reason why the paradox upholds.
Have you seen those Denizli roosters, they’re are huge
Not that kind of cock, but also that kind of cock. I love chickens, I just don’t want them in my body.
That’s the final panel & speech bubbles.
