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, @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.