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: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 14 2022, @06:52AM (9 children)
Popper and associates aspire to dictate what will be tolerated, and what will not be tolerated. Fuckem. Their charade will lead to censorship, persecution, and pogroms. Ready for the next holocaust?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @07:22AM (4 children)
Nope. But I am ready to invoke Godwin's Law.
In fact, your post expresses the same us versus them views that khallow is criticizing. Short of khallow making a reference to Hitler and Nazi Germany in his journal, which he didn't, your comment is the minimum possible number of comments to achieve a Godwin-ing.
Instead of spreading fear and hyperbole about people you disagree with, perhaps you ought to work toward finding common ground. That is far more likely to break down the conformity and cult mentality that can ultimately lead to violence. It's about building meaningful relationships with people who are intolerant so that they are exposed to a diversity of beliefs instead of reinforcing their cult-like intolerance.
Instead of breaking down the us versus them mentality that can reinforce intolerance and even lead to violence, you've decided to cast your political opponents as Nazis. Good work, Runaway.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 14 2022, @07:52AM (3 children)
Where have you been for the last few years? Did you completely miss the constant refrains of "fascists" and "literally Hitler"? Have you missed the Antifa Brownshirts - ooops, Blackshirts? Are you completely unaware of identity politics, pushed exclusively by one party? Feelz before facts and all the rest of the nuttery?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @08:55AM (2 children)
Oh, I'm well aware. I'm also aware that people like you whined incessantly about being labeled Nazis. But when the opportunity presents, you're happy to label the other side as Nazis.
And that makes it all the more ironic that you accuse others of hypocrisy [soylentnews.org] and complain about it. Of course, I'm also talking to the person who claims to be pro-life while rooting for 50 million dead liberals. None of this is healthy, whether for discourse in general, or for your well-being.
The problem is that you're not interested in finding common ground with the other side. You're afraid that if you tried to find common ground, you might learn that the "libs" aren't to be feared. They just disagree with you on some policy matters, but they agree on some things as well. You might find that the other side isn't the boogeyman that you believe it is. You might have to reconsider your world view. You've feared and hated the "libs" for so long that you're afraid to consider anything else. I hope you see the err of your ways, and that this intolerance isn't helping you.
You can start by finding some common ground with the "libs." If you don't think you have any common ground, then you haven't looked for it at all.
It's time to let go of the pain, the hatred, and the intolerance. You'll be glad you did.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2022, @01:18AM (1 child)
Well then, I suppose you've never read 1984, or any of the other dystopian tales. You are unfamiliar with the role propaganda played in Russia or Germany, or China. Republicans didn't propose that the government create a ministry of truth, Democrats did that. Give such a gift to today's cancel culture, then tell me that about Godwin.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @04:37AM
ICFI/SEP/IWA-RFC: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs anti-democratic “Don’t Say Gay” bill” [wsws.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @08:02AM (2 children)
Sir Karl Popper, to you, you hillbilly imbecile! You do not even know who he was, nor do you care. You have your own opinion, which is as great as the greatest minds that ever walked the planet. Right, you are entitled to your opinion, as long as janrinok protects you, but you are still an ignorant moron, and your opinion is worthless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @08:08AM (1 child)
Keep gobbling that royal cock ari. I'm sure it tastes better than common cock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @06:36PM
Sounds like the voice of experience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @12:23AM
These seem relevant to your interests. ICFI/SEP/IWA-RFC:
Marxism, history and the science of perspective [wsws.org]
A Little History is a dangerous thing [wsws.org]
A postmodernist attack on science [wsws.org]