SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @04:06AM (47 children)
vs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @04:42AM
beat me to it lol
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 14 2022, @04:56AM (45 children)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @05:05AM (23 children)
#FreeAristarchus! For the freezy peaches!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 14 2022, @11:53AM (21 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @04:45PM (15 children)
Doxxing is not illegal, just ask Fox who doxxed an abortion doctor for saving a 10 year old rape victim.
Why is it always lies and projection from rightwingers? Unban Aristarchus, or ban Runaway for his sock puppeting and stochastic terrorism.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 14 2022, @05:10PM (14 children)
In which state? Which country or state applies to you? Is it where you are now? Is it where your IP is registered? Is it the state of Delaware where SN is incorporated? Is the state in which the target lives? Is it where the servers are located? (Assange?)
Incitement to commit violence IS an offence. So is assisting in the execution of an assault - in the UK it is known as aiding and abetting. Now, IANAL, but some lawyers may argue the words that have been used amount to incitement. The most mild of them was "Why doesn't someone beat some sense into him?"
Some have been quoting literacy masterpieces as though they make a case for past actions. I will quote a film as to why your claims don't amount to much - "Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?"
However, as we can see no justifiable reason for doxxing no matter what the law may say - we are a private site and we can refuse access to anyone we choose.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @06:13PM (13 children)
Nice change of tactics, you only reinforce that you will defend the promotion of political terrorism. Ban them both, Runaway can create a new persona and stay away his domestic terrorism fetish. This is simple stuff here, and it is curious how far you'll go to excuse literal terrorist messaging.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 14 2022, @06:34PM (12 children)
As I have stated elsewhere - it is entirely legal for Runaway to say what he does in his journals. Representatives say it. TV stations say it. Newspapers print it. A former president shouts it out every opportunity he gets.
Why does the fact that it 'offends you' mean that Runaway cannot say it too? You are not for free speech - you are only for free speech for those who agree with you. That is NOT free speech.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @08:00PM (11 children)
The point was doxxing is not illegal, and your excuse for Runaway is that Fox, Trump, and other assholes engage in promoting terrorism so why can Runaway?
Now it turns out that Fox doxxed an abortion doctor, so your excuse for banning aristarchus but not runaway falls flat.
Both are wrong, yet you allow one under the guise of free speech. You ban the other because "we have standards."
Conclusion: you defend white supremacism.
To resolve this bit of hypocrisy I suggest banning Runaway. Alternatively you could unban Aristarchus. Either way you should update the rules, make them easily found from the front page with a single click, and enforce the rules with the banhammer. Or not, and allow the trolls to win.
So which path will you take janrinok? Integrity or hypocrisy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @08:05PM
"why cant Runaway" near the top
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 14 2022, @10:02PM (7 children)
I haven't supported Fox's actions in doxxing a doctor. So I cannot have used it as a defence. Fox, Trump, Representatives all repeat the same things that Runaway posts in his journal. As unpleasant as that my be, it is legal. The rest of your argument falls flat as it is based on a false premise, namely that I support the doxxing of a doctor - which I do not.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @11:04PM (6 children)
Your defence was "Fox does it" therefore the doxxing they have done is fair game by your logic. You've already buried yourself by appealing to legality, but I'm sure enough people will soothe your ego with "ari doxxing bad" that you'll forget or stop caring that your hypocrisy is very evident.
If runaway's pro-terrorism speech is fine because legally Fox does the same thing, than ari's doxxing is fine because Fox does the same thing. You seem incapable of saying "I don't care if runaway posts death threats." All your excuses fall flat when it is keeps coming down to your own judgment call after your legality excuses fail.
To be clear, I do not support either activity and just want consistent application of rules. Doxxing is bad, instigating mass murder is worse.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 15 2022, @04:09AM (5 children)
Please point out where I mentioned Fox News. I didn't. You introduced it.
I said TV stations. I did not say I supported any doxxing actions by anybody. There is only one person on this site who has supported doxxing. It wasn't me.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @07:38PM (4 children)
Got it.
Doxxing is not allowed.
Genocidal threats are free speech and nithing you can do about it.
That clears things up, thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2022, @07:06PM (3 children)
Oooh the trolls are angry janrinok's hypocrisy is pointed out. Is the point of SN to allow fascist rhetoric under the guise of free speech? I can't figure out any other interpretation. Almost pulled it off since everyone hates doxxing, but pretty sure killing 50 million progressives is worse than someone knowing where Runaway1956 lives. Janrinok stated in other threads that Republican politicians routinely spout such evil yet are not arrested for it, so Runaway's threat must be tolerated. Then Fox News doxxes a doctor so janrinok's logic got turned on its head. He either must admit doxxing is fine since he allows genicidal threats, or he buries himself deeper in denials saying he never mentioned Fox, and is technically correct since it was in a different thread. My bad, he still admits the reality but will not back down on ari's ban or ban runaway the nazi. Terrible stuff for SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 20 2022, @04:16AM (2 children)
Well, how often does Runaway do that? If he's killing 50 million progressives every weekend, then that's excessive and he really should cut back.
(Score: -1, Troll) by metatarchus on Friday July 29 2022, @12:39AM (1 child)
khallow and janrinok support white supremacism, by proxy if not directly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 29 2022, @01:04AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @03:10AM
That is incorrect. Doxxing can be illegal under slander/libel laws for example.
Let's give a couple examples. Consider first this scenario: a citizen criticizes a town official at a public meeting and the local newspaper, allied to the politician, then proceeds to publish embarrassing public details about the citizen and their near relatives even though those details aren't newsworthy or relevant. In some places, the newspaper can be sued for libel.
Then there's the example of radio broadcasters coordinating massacres during the Rwandan genocide. A key aspect of that was broadcasting the location of target groups to be massacred. That's a classic doxxing tactic, but with a body count of hundreds of thousands to a million.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @12:41PM
That's not even coherent. You're mixing up doxxing, alleged promotion of terrorism, and mere speech. janrinok doesn't have to treat your garbage seriously.
It's clear that janrinok took the path of integrity and you took the path of hypocrisy, very incoherent hypocrisy. Your post underlines that choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @11:47PM (2 children)
Lies. All he did was said a few things, that weren't even posted to this site as I understand the official story, and you dumbfucks lost your fucking minds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @02:24AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @03:12AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2022, @04:09AM (1 child)
Yes well what was akai.tsubasa banned for then?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday July 16 2022, @05:36AM
Being the sock puppet of another account. Being controlled by someone who is banned. Moderation abuse - it was used to moderate other sock puppets under the control of the same person.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2022, @08:47AM
Aristarchus, you were banned for doxxing Runaway, then for persistent disruption of SN with spam comments. Be honest enough to admit these things, which are plainly evident to many people here.
You say that you support free speech but your actions say otherwise. You doxxed Runaway with the goal of intimidating him into self-censoring what he posts. Self-censorship is still censorship, and it has a chilling effect on free speech.
I'm the AC who called you Ahab. While you've always been, shall we say, a unique poster, you contributed useful content. People who disagreed with you still respected and defended you. Then you became so obsessed with Runaway, your white whale, that you caused your own downfall. You are familiar with ancient Greece, meaning that you are undoubtedly familiar with the literary form of tragedy. That describes you, becoming so concerned with bringing about the fall of Runaway that you instead caused your own downfall.
Spock said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In that sense, it is preferable to take action to prevent you from posting disruptive content and to also stop APK's disruptive behavior for the benefit of many other users.
If you would like your story to have another act, it should be to repent and try to regain what you have lost. That would begin with an honest admission of what you have done and a commitment to not repeating the actions that led to your downfall. So far, you have shown no interest in doing so.
Have you ever seen the episode of Star Trek: Voyager called Bliss? It involves a telepathic space creature that tricks other beings into seeing their fantasies while they are actually being devoured by the creature. At no point is there any indication that the creature is actually intelligent. It's basically a Venus flytrap in space that uses telepathy instead of scents to attract its prey. Qatai helps Voyager escape from the creature, but is obsessed with killing the creature to the point that he cannot move on with his life. Even after a vast number of failed attempts to kill the creature, even as Voyager escapes and leaves to continue their journey toward the Alpha Quadrant, Qatai returns yet again to attempt to destroy the space creature. You are Qatai and Runaway is the creature.
Shall I call you Qatairistarchus? Or will you demonstrate the self-awareness to see what you have become, and to change?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @09:35PM (20 children)
None of that quote-mined section does. That is probably why you mined out the first part of that in the first place instead of the second part which does. Same as the next sentence that further reinforces the idea of rational engagement first (as with the entire chapter and other writings on the subject). Same as it ever was from you. Take out a single part, often out of context, and then declare victory when it doesn't explain life, the Universe, and everything.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @02:53AM (19 children)
Nonsense. I find it remarkable that you can't get the difference between defaulting to tolerance and saying that usually he won't tolerate intolerance, but sometimes will. They are very different approaches.
And there's more to the difference than that. For example, he wrote:
That situation is fine for me. Sure, "they" might not be prepared for rational argument, but I am. I would tolerate intolerance at the level of speech and belief because engagement on the level of rational argument can happen even if they don't want it. Meanwhile intolerating the intolerance means that you're enable this behavior by aiding them in isolating themselves away from rational argument.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @05:11AM (3 children)
And then you do it again. It would be cute if it were not so obvious and done to death.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @12:00PM (2 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2022, @01:25AM (1 child)
Of course not. Just because all woo is deception, doesn't mean all deception is woo. You may have quoted stuff that backed up your argument but we all know the real reason why you chose to leave out the parts that do not support your argument, here and elsewhere. Then you get to pretend like they don't exist or redefine them however you want free of restraint. It is your primary modus operandi: to abuse Aunt Sally rather than the men of steel. If you want to attack other formulations of the paradox of tolerance or invent your own version of it, that is fine. But don't pretend like you are arguing against Popper's, especially after admitting (for once) that you are not, or against your opponents after substituting your own version for theirs. When multiple people call you out on it, perhaps it is time for some self-reflection as to your actions, even if they are inadvertent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 16 2022, @01:30AM
How can I redefine what I don't talk about? Why would I even be interested in trying? Sounds like you got a surplus of woo there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @08:59PM (14 children)
<rolls eyes>
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @11:58PM (13 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2022, @10:40PM (12 children)
Oh, don't worry, I don't need any more time to decide what to think about your "rational arguments". But, by all means, if it makes you feel better to think of yourself as the misunderstood, courageously principled hero in your own inner self-narrative, well...who am I to object?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 18 2022, @01:32PM (11 children)
I don't know who you are, but I can clearly see you objected. And how long have you been saying this same thing over and over without once sayingwhy. I heard this song and dance with very similar wording before with the same lack of reason. I think there's a simple phrase that describes what's happening to you - cognitive dissonance.
It's not just the objecting while pretending not to. My take is that you need me to be this narcissistic straw man. That's why you never describe the alleged problems or offer solutions. You don't actually want me to change.
I think this whining is ridiculous. I dared voice what I actually do in the real world and somehow it becomes a silly self- narrative. Don't you have something better to do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @05:01PM (10 children)
What I "object" to is your notion that, while some nebulous "they" are not prepared for rational argument, you are. The very idea is laughable. I can't count the number of times I have tried to reason with you only to walk away with the unfortunate realization that you can't be reasoned with.
Over at least the last few years, any number of us have been telling you why we disagree with you. You just ignore, deflect, and misdirect. So, please don't suggest that we haven't bothered to engage with you. The lack of engagement is on your part.
The "cognitive dissonance" is entirely yours. Look, I get that you would like to believe that you are the hero in your own inner morality play, but out here in the real world it doesn't quite...track. I can see how that could create a bit of cognitive dissonance in your inner thought life. But that is your problem, not mine.
Need? No, we don't need any more narcissists in this world, thank you very much. There are already plenty of those around; too many, actually. You are just one more to add to the mix. So, don't flatter yourself too much.
I'm not "whining". I'm mocking you. There is a world of difference.
The silliness comes from your assertion that you style yourself as some sort of champion of "rational argument". Many (most?) of us here on SN know better.
I could ask the exact same thing of you, sir. My suspicion is that, in your case, the answer is no.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 18 2022, @05:52PM (9 children)
Currently we're at zero such times. I bet you can count higher than that. As before, I've heard this song and dance before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @06:17PM (8 children)
Incorrect.
Indeed, I can.
I'm sure you have. I just wonder when it is going to finally sink in through that thick, bony brow of yours.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 18 2022, @06:54PM (7 children)
I don't see you doing it. Instead you seem to be generating a bunch of noise. That indicates incapability to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @07:25PM (6 children)
You had your chances and decided to burn every bridge. Why should anyone engage you after years of your dissembling bullshit? Whine away, but you made your own bed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 18 2022, @07:42PM (5 children)
Because it isn't.
I think what's shown in this thread is that I've engaged in the usual good faith, reasonable argument. Meanwhile an idiot, that would be you, spouts boilerplate about all the rational argument I supposedly am missing. The telling fact is that you have repeatedly refused to divulge even the slightest concrete detail or bit of evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @07:58PM (4 children)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 18 2022, @08:03PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @08:24PM (2 children)
I've given you all the clues you need. The rest is up to you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 19 2022, @02:31AM (1 child)
Indeed. The result though is that you are just generating noise. Perhaps, if you wished to communicate in good faith, you wouldn't have wasted our time with nonsense "clues".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 19 2022, @12:15PM
That goes on here. AC can babble all they want about clues and hints, whatnot. But they never reveal the answer. That informs me that this guessing game would be an utter waste of my time because there are no clues. But it gets worse than that. Even if there were said clues and I somehow guessed whatever the AC claims to be the answer, they could then change the answer on the spur of the moment. That's the second problem, it makes no sense to give such power to someone who argues in bad faith.