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: 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.