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) by acid andy on Saturday July 16 2022, @12:43AM (10 children)
A good effort khallow and thanks for bringing back a bit more of the philosophy to SoylentNews.
A physical attack isn't a legitimate means of discourse but some kinds of discourse lead directly to such attacks, and I do not see him equating all kinds of intolerant discourse with those: he says "it may easily turn out", not it "will always turn out".
Only true if you are intolerant of ALL intolerance. That's precisely why we need to define the limits, to avoid the paradox. Popper gives a great example of a coherent limit: the point where the dialog leads to an unethical and physically harmful action! It doesn't matter that such an action isn't strictly part of the dialog.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 16 2022, @01:22AM (9 children)
There are other ways: for example, intolerance way out of proportion to the intolerance target, or poor discernment - intolerating things that aren't genuine intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2022, @07:28PM (8 children)
Sounds like you are looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Always seems to come down to wanting people to tolerate nazis. No thanks ;^]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 19 2022, @02:38AM (7 children)
Why would you say that? I noted, for example, a number [soylentnews.org] of Soylentils that have used the paradox of tolerance argument in stances against the free speech of the alleged intolerant. While I haven't tried to link to similar attitudes beyond SN, I do see the argument on occasion. That indicates some degree of problem.
Depends what you mean by "tolerate". If you mean, give them special rights, nobody is asking for that. If instead you mean, not actively suppress the speech of nazis and break public discourse just to keep nazis out, then not only do I want you to tolerate nazis, it is your responsibility as a member of a democratic country - including Europe - to tolerate them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2022, @07:13PM (6 children)
So you support unbanning Aristarchus? Should the apk spam be tolerated?
Many times it had been pointed out by staff and users that SN does not owe anyone a platform and is well within their rights to ban users and spam mod comments. So all you've done here is whine that nazis are not wanted. No shit, no one wants nazis and their 1st amendment rights are not under attack until government agents attack and imprison the poor crybaby nazis.
Seriously khallow, you only come off as a defender of nazis and it isn't even a valid 1A issue at play. The only way to logically extract yourself from this mess is to unban aristarchus or retract your statement and agree that SN is not the place for 100% unrestricted speech. The site already has a code of conduct, and nazi scum easily fit under "filth."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 19 2022, @11:28PM (5 children)
Do you? aristarchus and APK went beyond mere speech with very abusive behavior that hurt other people.
The fallacy here is that because some organization has rights to do this, that they should do whatever whim you think they should do.
The US First Amendment is not the only manifestation of free speech.
Or for you to acknowledge that aristarchus wasn't a free speech issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @07:47AM (4 children)
So you're saying there ade times when intolerance should nit be tolerated. Hope you learned the lesson, but I suspect you always knew it and just want to whine about people not liking your bullshit. Intolerance is fine when you like it. Ready to condemn yhe insurrection yet? Woops I'm sorry, did I assume your reality?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:01PM (3 children)
Of course. If you had been paying attention you would have noticed this long ago. For example, in response to the quote from Popper:
One tolerates speech and beliefs. One doesn't tolerate harmful behavior. It's not rocket surgery nor something that I just suddenly adopted (that quote is from 2018, remember?).
Nope. You just can't be bothered to reconcile reality with this cool narrative you have. First, the narrative of the insurrection doesn't actually have evidence for it. We've gone through this before. Here's just a random sample: A police officer didn't get his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. There were very few fire arms at the alleged insurrection. The gallows that Mike Pence was going be hanged on was just a cheap prop. Only one person died from violence and they were an idiot. Prosecutors had to search hard to find anyone who planned anything. The January 6 committee seems to be obsessing over illegally deleted texts from the critical period, but apparently hasn't found anything interesting. It goes on and on with ludicrous propaganda talking points devastated by reality. It was just a protest and the people who are documented to have broken laws are in the process of facing justice.
No similar protest or violence happened since either. Sorry, I'm not interested in your hysterias and I'm not going to contribute to your pointless two minute hate when there isn't even a target for it.
Further, these people weren't nazis. So right there, I'm defending someone who isn't a nazi - which breaks a previous narrative talking point. At this point, I don't care what you "suspect" because you're clearly following some irrelevant straw man narrative that doesn't involve me at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @04:20PM (2 children)
Ok nazi lover
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 21 2022, @03:05AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 21 2022, @08:14PM
Forgot to post as AC again kbuddy! Thanks for confirming your warm feelings towards nazis, is that why you're a park ranger? Have a burning need for a uniform and authority? #NotShocked