SoylentNews

A couple days back, we had a reapplication of the flawed idea of the paradox of tolerance - the idea, promulgated by philosopher Karl Popper, that if a community or society tolerates intolerance then it will eventually become an intolerant society - the alleged paradox is that tolerance leads to intolerance.

I disputed the idea then, but I think it's worthy of a more thorough thrashing. So I'll start with this post of mine from 2018:

Idiots like J-Mo aren't equipped to handle Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.

There is no paradox of tolerance. Let's recall what Popper actually wrote on the paradox:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Tolerating intolerant beliefs doesn't imply that one tolerates murder in the streets. While there may be ameliorating context outside of this paragraph, Popper commits a serious slippery slope fallacy here that tolerating intolerant beliefs then segues into tolerating physical attacks and such even though by no stretch of the imagination are they legitimate means of discourse, and then equates any flavor of intolerant belief with the subset of intolerance that settles disagreement with violence. Finally, he doesn't consider how this intolerance can be abused. I think we're seeing a taste of it today, where rival beliefs can be declared to be "intolerant" (often without regard for the content of the beliefs) and hence, fair game for preemptive intolerance.

That I think is the paradox of intolerance of intolerance. Once you do it, you and your beliefs fall solidly in the category of things against which you are supposedly intolerant. You should be intolerant of yourself and your beliefs! Not going to happen in practice, of course.

Instead a far better approach (one which I might add has been rather successful with respect to dealing with discrimination in the workplace) is to tolerate the belief, but don't tolerate the observable, harmful behavior. That eliminates most of the Orwellian facets of the Popper approach. Often it also means that you don't have to care what people believe. If someone assaults another, it doesn't matter what either of them believed (except perhaps as a means to further demonstrate guilt of the attacker in court).

Let's consider that quote a bit. First, I'm quoting it out of context so there might be some nuance I'm missing. But so has everyone else who brings it up. My rebuttal is to the bare argument, but I think that reasonable given that no one else goes any further.

The core of my rebuttal is in the paragraph after the above quote. There are three serious flaws in the quote that need to be considered. First, a slippery slope argument that assumes the presence of intolerance will eventually avalanche into widespread intolerance. A rival viewpoint here is that exposure to tolerance can make the intolerant more tolerant.

Second, there is an conflation of intolerance with violence. However, this doesn't explain cultures that are intolerant in various non-violent ways. For example, there are a variety of pacifist, isolationist religions (for example, Amish and Hutterites). They qualify as intolerant since they eschew a great of contact with the outside world, but that intolerance never rises to the level of violence, much less the "fists and pistols" of the Popper narrative.

Finally, is the whole problem with this idea, the paradox of intolerance of intolerance. Sorry, just because your bigotry is against some out-group that happens to be intolerant (or worse, wrongly perceived to be intolerant) just means that you're engaging in the very same intolerance. It's not only hypocritical, it's continuing the problem.

My take is that engagement is the better approach. Consider this. Every wacko cult follows similar playbooks: they isolate their followers from the rest of the world so that everyone is in the same screwy environment. Only the true believers are allowed to interact with the outside world in any way. Many other intolerant beliefs operate in the same way - creating an "us versus them" mythology, echo chambers, and similar means to cut off the believers from exposure to experiences that could undermine the beliefs. The strategy of intolerance versus such believers enforces this isolation. It makes the problems of intolerance worse.

So not only is the paradox of tolerance critically flawed on multiple levels, it makes the basic problem of intolerance worse.