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.
From what I’ve seen people use this as an argument for censorship. Personally I believe in proportional responses.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad. Censorship against speech regarding the government should be protected. However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas, and many countries censor hate speech. We censor people’s ability to physically and emotionally harm others. We censor threats. Censorship isn’t inherently bad, and is already used functionally everywhere, just ask ChatGPT.
I do however think censorship can be dangerous. I think the censorship we see in public forums (including lemmy) already treads on the toes of legitimate intellectual conversation of objective views on hate speech and offensive language. Tone policing is incredibly intellectually disingenuous, but is widespread because feelings trump literacy. I think the censorship of individual words is supremely dangerous because it also bans or limits the conversation around those words, their usage, etymology, and understanding their use. Comprehension of offensive things is just as valuable as understanding anything else, if not more so should you wish to fight them, but censorship of offensive things without context destroys the capacity for understanding to permeate the social consciousness.
However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas,
What is an isn’t a harmful idea changes drastically between generations. This would have been used to censor information about homosexuality before 1995 or so. “Harmful” as modernly defined is a subjective standard.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad, and I especially hate the idea that people think they have the authority to restrict what others learn about.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad
Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
There’s a reason I clarified that censorship of words and concepts for education is dangerous, censoring people using those concepts to cause harm is not.
Or did you stop reading after the first sentence?
Dude… If you don’t understand that my comment is responding to your post in its entirety, that ain’t my problem.
Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
Even people I find abhorrent have rights. That’s kind of how it works. Like your opinion is drastically harmful to my way of life, and I think people like yourself have a misguided concept of what’s actually in your control, but I support your right to express yourself.
Also there’s a paradox in your thinking. You said speech against governments should be protected. So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action. Do we not now have a right to talk about X due to the fact that it’s being censored by a governing force? If not how do you rectify that against your belief speech against governments should be protected.
You said speech against governments should be protected.
Yes
So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action.
You shouldn’t ban speaking about anything. This is where you missed the point.
Think of it like this. It should be illegal to be a Nazi. It should be legal to discuss Naziism.
It should be illegal to use racial epithets directed at a person in hate, but it should be legal to say and talk about those words.
It’s called contextual nuance, and until you have a solid grasp of it you won’t be able to make accurate determinations.
Being pronazi in your system would be speaking against the government.
No, being pro nazi is not against the government, it’s against the rights of other people. You really are thick.
deleted by creator
Elaborate, please.
To what end? What are you looking to learn?
Understand.
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship.
Can you elaborate on that, please?
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship
The comment you responded to was an observation not an argument.
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
I’m sorry man but I really don’t have the patiences to write a thesis about this especially since I don’t think what I wrote is deep, or complicated to understand. There are literally people responding to my initial comment justifying censoring religion. You can also search Lemmy for “paradox of tolerance” and you will find countless examples of what I’m talking about if you are genuinely interested.
It happened with the UK.
Our political landscape went to shit when mainstream platforms started giving highly right wing and racist parties like UKIP and the BNP platforms.
Its not a paradox.
Tolerance is a social contract.
If you refuse to be part of the social contract, then you do not receive its protection.
it is not paradoxical to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract to harm individuals or society. Being violently intolerant against them is nothing but acting in the defense of our own personhood, the personhood of our fellows, and the good of our society.
Exactly, it’s only really a paradox of you try to define “tolerance” as a completely unqualified imperative. Tolerance of what?
Semantically speaking, “Are you in favor of tolerance?” Does not express a proposition, while “Do you tolerate everything?” without additional qualification is descriptively negative. No paradox at all.
Well put, but even so, the social contract is still amenable to social changes at different times. Social values change over time and so does the social contract. One day people are more liberal, the next conservative, far left or far right. What was accepted before by society becomes forbidden. What was forbidden is now accepted. That’s why I think free speech is a never ending discussion and debate.
I’m not saying that Popper’s paradox has no merit and I am not in favour of stifling free speech due to possibility of intolerance, but there is a fine line with exercising free speech and harming others through hate speech. That’s why the debate on free speech must continue and that’s the best we could do as society without stifling the right to free speech and dehumanising and harming others.
I dont know who you are, and I’m not going to make any assumptions.
but I will tell you.
You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments. a certain group that wants to use tolerance against the tolerant and constantly try to debate for no other reason to get the goal posts shifted and their hatred and bigotry accepted as normal discourse.
That’s the thing, who defines hate speech? Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed. Now, depending on the country, being a critic of religions is a non-issue. But even doing so still is a grey area because criticising ideas is occasionally mixed with bigotry to the individual or group itself.
Criticising government policies, exposing government corruption, could be charged as treason in many cases throughout history and even to this day. But many critics could either be recognised, demonised or ignored, depending on whether the population care enough about politics or not. Some population care enough and protests, some don’t because they are politically apathetic.
That’s why the debate on free speech is never ending. It is always a case by case basis. And I think we should be comfortable with straddling the line.
tolerance does not equal free speech, laws or societal norms.
Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed.
would you say this was a tolerant society? do you think if people tolerated this behavior it would no longer be acceptable?
you’re free to say what you want but that doesn’t mean the statement is tolerant or intolerant, it depends on if you’re infringing on someone else’s right to existence.
would you say this was a tolerant society?
I would say it was only intolerant of those who were intolerant of its norms.
Tolerance and free speech are intrinsically linked. Historically, free speech has been based on the value of tolerance. But as time went on, because of recent history, maximum tolerance of free speech has led to hate speech and thus we know there is limit to it.
Social mores are ever changing is what I’m saying. You mentioned that free speech is based on social contract, which is based on the underlying social mores and values. To us, what the past valued is not tolerant but for them it is. They think criticising religion is for the good of society, especially that religion has been the cornerstone of social order for many cultures for generations. But as time progressed, we learned better that religions are basically made up and is abused by those in power. And even within just fifteen to twenty years ago, we did not tolerate lgbt because that’s what society has just taught us. We did not question the prejudice against lgbt until recent years, because there is implicit consequence that going against the social norms would destabilise perceived order.
That being said, tolerance and free speech are ever evolving with time, influenced by many factors, for better or for worse. The middle ground in my opinion is to continue debating. I was an absolutist on free speech until I learned what it leads to. But at the same time, restricting free speech and tolerance in general could lead to slippery slope with unpredictable consequence because it could be applied to just about anything. Who defines what is tolerable or hate speech? We know that governments and societies around the world impose certain restrictions based on arbitrary yet vague ideas whether legal or moral.
Merriam-Webster: Tolerance - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
you’re trying to change the definition of the word to justify intolerance based on societal norms. by your logic would you consider the Talibans oppression of women tolerant because the powers in charge say it’s the societal standard?
It’s a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all. What was acceptable isn’t anymore and vice versa. What is being debated is always a case by case basis. It’s not hard to grasp. Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea. Restricting women’s rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate. But criticising a government policy or religion. What exactly are being talked about in the first? What is being railed against the government and religion? Define what is to be discussed first instead of going on abstract and then we can get back to discussion.
You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments
Is there?
It it possible you just assume that anyone who makes such an argument must be a member of that group?
Well, If it quacks like a duck, and sieg heils like a duck…
I always cringe when I read comments like this.
Interwar Germany considered Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and various others to not be “part of the social contract”.
Reading your comment with that idea in mind: It is “not paradoxical” to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract. “Being violently intolerant against them” is nothing but acting in the defense of self, defense of German people, and the good of German society.
The truly terrifying part is the inevitable rebuttal. It’s always been some variation of “Yeah, but my cause is righteous!”, as though the Germans thought themselves to be evil in 1923.
The paradox is that Popper cribbed his philosophy from Mein Kampf, and nobody seems to realize it. Popper’s paradox should be seen as a lesson on the insidiousness of fascism.
I always cringe when I read comments like this.
Cringes at my comments, has no problem with trying to somehow equate social progress and tolerance with nazism.
Ad hominem.
If you think paraphrasing what you said back to you is an ad hominem, maybe, just maybe, you should reconsider your opinion.
Is that how you see it? They “paraphrased” my own statement?
The foundation of my argument is that Interwar German people believed Jews to be enemies of their society. I don’t think that is a controversial claim.
What happens when those interwar German people adopt the philosophy described in the parent comment? What happens when they operate against their enemies in exactly the way that the parent commenter suggested?
Let’s try another tack: there are people today who believe homosexuality is an intolerant act against the social contract. There are people today who believe trans people are intolerant of the social contract. We would both likely call them bigots. Should we support these people calling for intolerance of the people they deem intolerant of their cis/hetero lifestyles?
I think you misunderstand the original post. Being tolerant and inclusive ist not a contract you can be for or against, it is the contract you act for or against.
If I act against the contract by being intolerant of others i will be excluded. In your example a homosexual person by being homosexual is not acting against the contract. He/she by being homosexual does not exclude other people from society. If I say: “They have no place in society!”, I am the intolerant one and should be excluded from the contract.
I think I understood the original post correctly.
I would argue that they can and do frame their arguments in such a way as to qualify themselves as victims of gay/trans intolerance. The most obvious would be any criticism of “cancel culture”. An argument that gay/trans supporters are “canceling” people for minor, not-intolerant slights would justify their counter-intolerance under the paradox, and set up the conditions I outlined.
I would say that your argument is overly technical.
Adam and Bob are both homophobes. Adam argues gay people shouldn’t exist, and then argues that’s gay people want to cancel him. Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him, and then argues that gay people should not exist. With the technical interpretation you have presented, I would have to conclude that Adam has violated the social contract. He has indicated intolerance against gay people first, justifying the counter-intolerance against him. Bob, however, claims to be intolerated by gay people, which then justifies his counter-intolerance of gay people.
I consider Adam and Bob to be functionally identical. I think a valid philosophical model would evaluate them equally. I consider the technicality you describe to be an insignificant error in logic rather than the fundamental operating principle of the paradox.
What you are talking about is more consistent with the “Non-Aggression Principle” than Popper’s Paradox.
Are you saying that interwar Germany was a tolerant society?
They were pretty tolerant of Aryans and other who accepted the “social contract”. It was only those who “refused the social contract” that they really had a problem with. But we’ve decided that it’s OK to be intolerant toward those who refuse the contract.
I was just coming to say this, thanks!
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
Go to Combat Footage on Reddit. They’re with the good guys on this one.
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.
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
Whatever you think, youre right and superior and others are wrong.
Thank you!!! Is nice to have some confirmation once in a while. 👍💫
Fully agree. The only catch with this is it can be distorted with propaganda to point to anyone as being intolerant, with enough saturation. The bar for recognizing intolerance needs to be fairly high.
Why?
-
We don’t want to risk further radicalizing those still within reach and not completely indoctrinated.
-
We don’t want to risk a false accusation and provoke witch-hunts.
-
We don’t want the intolerant to use this against the tolerant.
It’s why I’m always a bit leery of the knee-jerk punch-a-nazi movements.
Appeasement doesn’t work with an opponent incapable of concession.
deleted by creator
This was my first thought. If people choose what’s intolerant based on preference then anything can be intolerant.
I’ve personally witnessed my little brother express hating the left more than Nazis after he was banned from a video game for calling someone a retard.
-
I like that this most important point is at the top. It reduces the chances someone will skim and only ready the way to not do it.
If twelve people sit at a table with a Nazi, you have thirteen Nazis
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.
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?
An Italian left-wing comic author once said that neo-fascism has been normalized so much that Nazi is the only term left, but perhaps that applies only to his country.
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.
True, but not a meme. More like an infographic.
Sorry sir, we only do soapboxes here.
And a pretty poor one at that. It doesn’t demonstrate the concept.
