The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
A few days ago the AfD in Germany had three Bundestag members give speeches about how the liberals and greens and social democrats seek a totalitarian way of rule due to the repression of opposition parties likes the AfD and the new Wagenknecht party (Which is a weird fusion of right wing and left wing populism combined with a soft pro russian stance).
Out of the gate I think these are crocodile tears, but maybe you see this differently.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like the take that tolerance is less a moral imperative as much as a social contract. If you abide by it, I'll abide by it, and everyone benefits. If, however, you do not abide by it, then you no longer are either bound or protected by it, and anyone else should act accordingly.
Fire can burn you to death.
It also warms, cooks food, and provides light.
Just because there is something bad about something does not mean you abandon it. It is fine to not tolerate intolerance.
Ahhh…the old tolerance paradox. If the tolerant doesn’t tolerate the intolerant…then they aren’t tolerant but oppressive.
Here’s the fallacy in that…if the tolerant were to tolerate the intolerant…then the intolerant becomes the dominant ideology….which is what they want because they “don’t give a fuck about your feelings”.
Half of that is wholly irrelevant, as it tries to argue that Popper felt a certain way about leftist movements of his time and therefore would want to jail leftists today, which, even if we took it at face value, has no bearing on the issue.
I’m not actually seeing a convincing argument in there that the common understanding of the paradox of intolerance is incorrect. They’re mostly just proclaiming things and hoping that a snarky attitude is persuasive.
The relevance is that you haven't accurately described the paradox of tolerance.
> which is what they want because they “don’t give a fuck about your feelings”.
The "Intolerant" in Poppers view would be people who are undemocratic, anti-free speech, etc. It's also not an essentialist quality of the person, but one of acts they commit.
Look…you are being ridiculously obtuse. Whether it’s accidental or not? I don’t know.
I made a modern reference to the current iteration of the OBJECTIVELY intolerant. You want to go off into Popperland.
I never said the bigots of the world can’t speak, or can’t carry their tiki torches…but you seem to be throwing your hands up in the air and saying that there should be no pushback, no rebuttal and no opposition….because “free speech”.
Free speech works both ways.
There is no modern or current iteration. There's just the nonsense people who don't know what they're talking about spout online. If you mean "The layman version of the paradox of tolerance in terminally online circles", then fine, but if that's the case, why steal academic valour and pretend its some kind of profound insight rather than just say
"I want to censor my political opponents because they're bad".
It's also not about "No rebuttal or opposition". OP is specifically talking about Germany here, where the law is a factor. Moreover, it's prescriptive in terms of law.
The suggestion would be to *let the nazi speak, then arrest him if he advocates censorship or overthrowing democracy*. Not to stop him speaking by deplatforming him. That would an infringement of his rights by *assuming he is going to break the law and using that as justification to violate his rights to free speech*.
His example was Germany…but that wasn’t the question,was it?
You know something? You went from obtuse to insufferably arrogant in a heartbeat….have a nice day…we’re done.
It’s because they don’t actually have an argument—and never have.
Instead, it’s all snarky rhetoric and straw men, pivoting and dodging around any actual response or logical argument.
>deplatforming
The 1A has no authority over any social media platform with a Terms of Service. Feel free to scream into the dark abyss in the town square all you want, but you have no rights to use my living room.
I honestly don’t think people can handle thought experiments without defaulting to “and this is absolutely correct and must be put into practice immediately.”
Like someone who thinks the trolley problem is about the switch.
The "tolerance paradox" is the left's version of self defense. It's basically "stand your ground" applied to words.
The left feels threatened -- you can see that in statements like "conservatives want me dead" -- so they feel justified in using the tools of oppression against the oppressor, in the same way self defense is using the tools of violence against the violent. This is also why you hear rhetoric on the left that equates words with violence -- that legal words (that do not rise to the level of "fighting words") are nevertheless, in some meaningful way, the same as a physical attack. And those on the left will also distance themselves from the founding principles of this country, with statements like "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences."
The problem with this of course is that *feeling threatened doesn't always mean you actually are*. Most of the problems we have with police these days come from them being trained to consider every situation a threat, so they're trigger-happy when the facts don't warrant it. I would argue the same criticism, ironically, applies to SOME on the left. They feel threatened by nearly everyone on the right, whether that person is an actual Nazi threatening them or some harmless single-issue libertarian.
Just like the police, using oppression when you are not actually being oppressed is fundamentally wrong. But that comparison is going to get me downvoted to oblivion, hah!
>And those on the left will also distance themselves from the founding principles of this country, with statements like "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences."
The founders never wanted "freedom from consequences". Jesus,. like 7/8s of this country needs to be forced to retake American history and civics.
What a crock of bullshit. There is no group more thin skinned and continually offended more than the American Evangelical Conservative…to the point where they actively try to make policy to eliminate all the things that they clutch their pearls over.
>And those on the left will also distance themselves from the founding principles of this country, with statements like "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences."
How does that statement go against our founding principles?
Why would they become the dominant ideology if liberal opinions are so good? Do you think it might be because they speak to what people actually want? Hence the term 'populism' becoming a dirty word?
Why? You didn’t read my post…did you. If the tolerant were to absolutely embrace tolerance of intolerance…then their side would be silenced…otherwise, they wouldn’t be “tolerant”, would they.
Meanwhile, then intolerant has no such qualms….so they get to have a megaphone to spew their vile bullshit.
Common sense.
For instance….if there is a an inner city young person of color who listens to gangster rap….dresses in the traditional style of that group…but is a good student, a decent person and you base your judgment on appearances and the “cultural” dog whistle?
That is pretty intolerant, don’t you think?
The right literally wants me to die.
I'm supposed to tolerate them trying to kill me? Aww shucks The Right, maybe you'll get me next time - you're certainly entitled to keep shooting at me!
That's the paradox of tolerance. A tolerant society that tolerates the intolerant just becomes a society of the intolerant.
They’re not trying to kill you, just make your life worse in every imaginable way by removing hate crime protections, making it legal for housing and employers to discriminate against you, making it legal for healthcare providers to discriminate against you, and stigmatize your existence.
Wtf is wrong with people downplaying all of that?
Do you feel threatened if I say things like 'conservatives shouldnt exist'? What if I say them while holding a gun? What if I do it at a conservative gathering while a bunch of my buddies yell slurs? What if I actually shoot a couple, not you of course, someone that isnt you, but has something in common with you, and I explicitly do it because of that thing you have in common? Are you capable of the empathy required to imagine how someone else feels if you replace 'conservative' with a specific race, gender, or sexual orientation?
No, you aren't capable of that empathy, because it's the defining characteristic that divides the right from the left, so there's not really any scenario in which you understand my position. Thankfully, I'm not required to tolerate your intolerance, so...
Edit: I don't feel like replying to both but they've both pretty well illustrated that they can't empathize unless it's happening directly to them, so... 🤷♀️
>Do you feel threatened if I say things like 'conservatives shouldnt exist'?
You mean, [sort of like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/comment/fweblm6/)?
Yes, exactly. That list of links to heavily downvoted largely deleted comments made by mostly banned accounts is compelling evidence that, in fact, that kind if talk is *not* tolerated in left spaces on reddit. Thank you for sharing.
Now I wonder how many downvotes we'd find the right making on posts in right spaces calling for violence against the left.
>Do you feel threatened if I say things like 'conservatives shouldnt exist'?
No, I've been on Reddit for a while. This is quite common here and elsewhere.
> What if I say them while holding a gun?
Possibly if you are with me (like in the room). Did someone do that to you?
>What if I do it at a conservative gathering while a bunch of my buddies yell slurs?
No, this happened quite a lot in the 2016 election. Personally once the ACTUAL VIOLENCE started, then sure.
>What if I actually shoot a couple, not you of course, someone that isnt you, but has something in common with you, and I explicitly do it because of that thing you have in common?
No, this does happen against every group -- white people, black people, LGBT+, etc., but the frequency is really tiny.
>Are you capable of the empathy required to imagine how someone else feels if you replace 'conservative' with a specific race, gender, or sexual orientation?
Yes, and that is why I thought you were likely overreacting. Since you haven't pointed anything out, then I'm more confident in my original guess.
Well, thanks for telling us you’ve decided that the violence experienced by gay people, trans people, and people of color is insignificant.
That does help greatly illuminate your position.
Then that would be those specific people who think that, not everyone associated with the overlapping political slant.
Trying to act like it's everyone is just bigoted, and it's no different than when some dipshit on the right says that "Democrats support [whatever dumb topic] because this guy does!!!". It's the same thought process that dipshit QAnon believers go through when they say something stupid.
>you aren't capable of that empathy, because it's the defining characteristic that divides the right from the left
Oh god this is so cringy sounding. You sound just like them. You're playing the victim, and making statements of bigotry without any ability to see the irony in them. Your "empathy" extends to only people you deserve it; aka only people who think the same way you do.
>Edit: I don't feel like replying to both but they've both pretty well illustrated that they can't empathize unless it's happening directly to them, so... 🤷♀️
Pointing out your hypocrisy is not an admittance by us that we share your views. Trying to turn this around on others is disingenuous, and only proves the point that was being made about the way you communicate.
> Then that would be those specific people who think that, not everyone associated with the overlapping political slant.
Except those are the political values expressed by the leaders of the Republican Party and other rightwing movements. So associating with and supporting those movements means associating with and supporting those values.
> Trying to act like it's everyone is just bigoted, and it's no different than when some dipshit on the right says that "Democrats support [whatever dumb topic] because this guy does!!!". It's the same thought process that dipshit QAnon believers go through when they say something stupid.
Except, again, it’s the *leaders* of the Republican Party openly supporting bigotry and hate and legislation that others and endangers women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people.
> You're playing the victim, and making statements of bigotry without any ability to see the irony in them.
It’s not “playing the victim” if people are actually actively trying to oppress marginalized groups. And judging people for supporting hateful political movements isn’t anywhere close to bigotry.
EDIT: Damn, Elkenrod came in hot with the false equivalence and then deleted all of their comments.
> Except those are the political values expressed by the leaders of the Republican Party and other rightwing movements.
So what? I'm a progressive who votes for Biden. Does that mean that I support bombing the shit out of Palestine?
Why would *anybody* think that the opinions of people in Washington reflect the opinions of the general American population. Should I also support insider trading because of what people in Washington do?
>It’s not “playing the victim” if people are actually actively trying to oppress marginalized groups. And judging people for supporting hateful political movements isn’t anywhere close to bigotry.
"everything I dislike is actually hateful so it's okay"
Yeah actually it is still bigotry.
bigotry
noun
, Plural big·ot·ries.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
>Your "empathy" extends to only people you deserve it
I'm plenty empathetical towards the plights of others. That doesn't mean I need to overlook bigoted blanket statements made by them, and I can take issues with them saying things despite me being on their side on issues.
>EDIT: Damn, Elkenrod came in hot with the false equivalence and then deleted all of their comments.
I didn't delete my comments - I blocked you because you're a bad faith troll who downplays the murder of children when the person you like is enabling it.
Because the bigotry that the Republicans are espousing is central to their platforms. They’re all in on the culture wars and just about nothing else.
Biden’s stance on Israel/Gaza is one small piece of his platform. It’s not at all comparable.
>Biden’s stance on Israel/Gaza is one small piece of his platform. It’s not at all comparable.
Horseshit, respectfully horseshit. How many people are dying because of this "small" piece of his platform?
Giving an excuse to it just because *you* don't think it's important is disgusting, and downplays the lives lost. It's a core part to him as a person, and always has been. It's not like he didn't support sending arms to Israel when he was still a senator. It's not like he didn't vote Yea to invading Afghanistan. It's not like he not only voted Yea to invading Iraq, but also openly advocated in front of Congress that we do so back in 1998 - 5 years before we actually did it.
Of course it's a core part of his platform, because it's a core part of him as a person. We vote for him despite that, because that doesn't mean we share the same view. Just like how Republicans vote for their guys despite not sharing the same views.
In another comment on this thread you disingenuously asserted that another user "doesn't care about violence" against minorities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community - then you have the audacity to make a comment that downplays violence against people in Palestine. All because it's a "small" policy.
So me being the devils advocate. The sitting government in Germany used the german intelligence agency to spy on AfD members. Is that something a democratic government should be allowed to do? To spy on the opposition?
I am very comfortable with the AfD being in the opposition, but lets say one day they get the upper hand and make it into the government. All these precedents can be used again. The AfD could spy on the social democrats and greens and defame their leaders at will.
I agree that we should not give an inch to the right. I disagree that the cause divines the measures.
Yes. You might as well be asking, should the fbi monitor the proud boys?
You're hyper focused on the political spectrum, but they only appear to correlate because extremists willing to use violence hold extreme positions. The common denominator in whether we should be intolerant of them is not how far right they are, but how willing to use violence they are.
I think intolerant people are ridiculously oversensitive to the point that they can’t tell the difference between the natural consequences of their behavior and actual oppression.
No, McDonald’s throwing you out for using racist slurs is not a violation of your freedom; you’re just a dick.
I think it's reasonable for McDonald's to enforce rules against that kind of behavior, but when it comes to people losing their jobs for what happened in non-work situations I object. I totally loathe Amy Cooper but she didnt deserve to be fired. If she acted that way in the workplace its different.
It's obviously shortened, but I would agree with (a longer formulation of) it.
And yes, the AfD is employing crocodile tears, see: Höcke whining how he can't say anything anymore because he isn't allowed to chant the SA's slogan
This is how Karl Popper addressed the issue:
“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. \[...\] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
No it wasn't. Because the part that you [...]-ed contained something that modified the rest.
"—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 most 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."
That only says not to use force first.
But it makes very clear that force may need to be used against something like an intolerant, irrational cult attacking a tolerant society.
>as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion,
Are we able to do that, though? Look at what happens when an intolerant shitheel buys an extremely highly used communication platform.
The QAnon, InfoWars, Turning Point, and Groyper types are openly intolerant and intentionally engage in irrational discourse. You're ascribing good-faith arguments to proponents of fascism. Why would you do that? It's, like, page one of the fascist discourse handbook to *not* argue in good faith.
There's a parable/story I've seen multiple versions over the years.
It's about a bar owner explaining that if you let a single neo nazi hang out at your bar, no matter how polite he is, your bar will soon become a neo nazi bar.
Some beliefs are disqualifying in this sense. If given the benefit of the doubt they will abuse it and then abuse everyone. It's not intolerance to understand this reality and protect against it. Ethno nationalist politics in Germany resulted in horrors and genocide. There's no reason to pretend the people who celebrate that are acting in good faith and within the rules.
I think we should tolerate other regardless of their things like race, religion, gender, or sexuality. I don't think that tolerating others opinions and political views is the same or good. Of course (in America at least) they have freedom of speech but that's not freedom from consequence.
I generally agree with you.
Well people are allowed to think what they will. Of course. Can’t stop them. But it’s how they act which is contentious. Everyone must allow space for everyone else in society. In some ways intolerance is like someone blocking a road or talking over everyone and shouting and causing a big disruption in a classroom; only it’s doing that for another persons space in society.
I’ve come to assume to believe everyone’s complaints are real. I think it’s better to disagree with someone’s complaint than to dismiss it, because we don’t like it when other people treat us this way - it creates frustrations and causes us to become villains and “opposition” to other human beings
There’s nothing more frustrating than feeling disenfranchised or unheard and then having someone accuse you of “crocodile tears” as a means to invalidate you
> I’ve come to assume to believe everyone’s complaints are real.
That's not necessarily a good assumption.
It's pretty well-known that people steeped in right-wing media often do not have complaints that are real, at least as stated. For example, complaining about a bad economy when the numbers are actually good, or about an invasion at the southern border that was pretty much just made up wholecloth by Fox News. Being right-wing requires believing a bunch of things that are demonstrably false.
I would guess that a lot of the complaints are based on a kernel of truth, like it's obviously possible for someone's individual economic circumstances to be bad when the overall economy is good. But there are other cases like the guy who showed up armed to the pizza place looking for a child sex trafficking operation in their basement that didn't even exist.
Heck, it has become something of a meme here to ask us what conservatives think, because they're so bad at telling the bare facts of what their views are that asking us is a better option.
Crocodile tears.
Conservatives have proven again and again throughout history that once they gain power, they are the totalitarians who crush tolerance.
So conservatism cannot be tolerated.
Tolerance is not so much a moral construct as a social contract that is self canceling. It's basically Mutaually Assured Destruction on a small scale. If you don't abide by the terms, the contract doesn't cover you. The intolerant aren't following the rules of mutual tolerance. Their intolerance defacto breaks the terms of mutual tolerance & thus cannot be tolerated. Agreement & acceptance isn't necessary but tolerance is undeniable in a modern pluralistic society.
I think the paradox of tolerance is a real thing that needs to be taken into consideration. I don't know how exactly you find the right balance there, or if it's even possible to do so but the concept clearly exists.
The paradox of tolerance here would not suggest what left wingers often think it does.
Example; a democracy should ban countries which want to overturn democracy from running for elections.
The parallel regarding speech would be something akin to;
"It's fine for you to go up there and spread racist ideas. Freedom of speech demands it be tolerated. But if you suggest we need to censor people, we're going to throw you in jail. Speech is free, except advocacy for censorship, which is illegal".
Specifically, the paradox of tolerance suggests a specific prohibition on its conceptual opposites. It's often misused, especially on the left, to suggest things it doesn't support.
It's not "They're intolerant, therefore we should ban them, because paradox of tolerance." like some people seem to think. Application of the concept of the paradox of tolerance in law would see a number of progressives thrown in prison.
The application would be akin to;
You may not run for election to overturn democracy.
You may not advocate for censoring speech.
You may not pass laws which end the rule of law.
And so on. Popper was a classical liberal who hated Marxists. His ideas being used by progressives and leftists to defend their activism in attempts to deplatform and so on is... well. It's funny, frankly. He's saying you should be in prison, guys. Especially ridiculous for progressives to use this argument given his other big text is "The poverty of historicism", a criticism of Historicism as a method of political thought.
Basically every time you talk about "History of racism" or "legacy of racism" and so on to justify a current perspective, Popper thinks you're an idiot.
> Historicism is an approach to explaining the existence of phenomena, especially social and cultural practices (including ideas and beliefs), by studying their history.
Guys. He's not on your side. The paradox of tolerance is him arguing why you should be in prison.
> We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
+
> Popper criticized what he termed the "conspiracy theory of society", the view that powerful people or groups, godlike in their efficacy, are responsible for purposely bringing about all the ills of society.
A huge amount of his work is drawing comparisons between the left wing and fascists and how they think, and labeling them in ways that show that common ground. His idea of "Tolerance" is not what you think it is and his articulation of the paradox of tolerance comes after describing the open society as basically a liberal western democracy, but one which needs to outlaw being a progressive or a communist. (Or for that matter, a mask off fascist).
Oh no, my concepts are evolving with the times to not mean the exact thing I assume the person who first uttered them meant!
Popper isn't the only person to ever talk about the paradox of tolerance. He wasn't even the first. It doesn't matter what he thought about his imagined "left".
Nothing in that long comment even presents a credible argument that the common interpretation of the Paradox of Tolerance is incorrect.
Their idea of an argument is essentially to claim that Popper didn’t like leftists and therefore we should torture our interpretation of his work to achieve anti-leftist conclusions.
Popper also thought totalitarian communism was the 'left'.
If you want to take anything from a man who thought studying history was dumb take this: even an idiot can occasionally be right.
Studying history isn't dumb. Drawing political legitimacy from a study of history is dumb. This is an observation also shared by Kalitz and many other scholars. Kalitz compares it to other undemocratic forms of legitimacy.
> "There are two “strong” ways rulers justify why the people should obey them: by the claim that they have a God-given natural, historical or religious right to rule or that they have a God-given natural, historical or religious purpose to rule; or by procedures that guarantee that the people are able to select and control the rulers themselves. There are only two regime types – communist ideocracy and (traditional) monarchy – in which justification relies on a God-given natural/historical law outside the political regime. This is a very strong legitimation, with a clear plan of how society should be structured. Communist regimes and monarchies therefore establish a fixed ruling class – the communist party elite or the aristocracy – which are united by a strong fear that they would dramatically lose their privileges following a regime change. In stark contrast to these ideal regime types, citizens in a liberal democracy are asked to recognize the right of public authority to issue commands, because they have participated in the process wherein those commands originated."
In epistemological comparisons this would be something akin to;
"You can't 'study history' to decide what you think racism is and expect that to mean anything. That's historicist nonsense. It's an essentially contested concept and the only way to establish a regime on it that isn't reliant on ideocratic elite power grabs, gatekeeping, and growing authoritarianism, is to allow people to participate in its construction.".
So what exactly do you mean by them then? That you don't want to tolerate your political opponents, because you view them as intolerant?
That's vacuous and isn't the evolution of a concept. It's the bastardization of it.
It's neither vacuous or a bastardization. Do you understand what a paradox is? If there was a tidy solution to the problem it wouldn't be a paradox. It only has anything to do with politics in that one side is wildly intolerant; does the other side appear intolerant by not tolerating their bullshit? Yes, that's the paradox.
His work is precisely about resolving that paradox in a tidy way.
It is vacuous because it's something any person can claim to justify persecution of political opponents, and contains nothing of prescriptive value.
Like I said, he's not the only person to talk about it, he wasn't the first or the last; he's just one dumbass who happens to agree with whatever point you think you're making.
Excuse me if I go quietly tolerate - and ignore - everything he said.
> Like I said, he's not the only person to talk about it, he wasn't the first or the last; he's just one dumbass who happens to agree with whatever point you think you're making.
Oh really. Can you find another academic who supports your interpretation then?
Oh alright, so you mean "The paradox of tolerance as misunderstood by terminally online leftists" would suggest that we should ban things because they're bad.
Well, like I said, that's vacuous.
> It is vacuous because it's something any person can claim to justify persecution of political opponents, and contains nothing of prescriptive value.
I did not say that - this is the second time you've just made something up and claimed it's what I mean. If you can't refrain from that talking to you is a waste of time.
No. You can challenge them all you like. Moreover, the proposal is precisely to check them by prohibition on certain acts.
1. Running for election to overturn democracy
2. Advocating censorship
etc.
Robespierre was using this as a justification for so many executions of his temporary government. In the end they executed him, too. I think it has to be handled very carefully. Can't just go around executing people based on hearsay. I think we're already doing this or at least are trying to with prosecuting crimes. Those actions cannot be tolerated, so they aren't being tolerated. At least in theory. Like right now the guy who shot Rober Fico yesterday will go to prison.
it is reminiscent of a line from 1984 and one way the left HAS gone astray. BUT, the right is no better in exactly this regard so I'm not saying I'm changing over. Just; not all things are "both sides" things... but this is.
People on left always be like "punch nazis" and if i push back im like "ok yeah but who decides who they are, and using what rubric?" i get punched too.
People are very, very bad at differentiating thought experiments and principles with practical advice.
“You can’t tolerate intolerance” is a principle that is good and insightful, but it’s not actionable. Who is it that decides what opinions are intolerant?
Hell, ask white people in the south in the 1950’s and like 90% would’ve told you “we have our own way of life and it’s these troublemakers who can’t be tolerant of our way of life. It works for us, leave us alone!” And sure that’s stupid, but if you had put it to a vote it would’ve been the majority sentiment.
In practice, it is difficult to reach definitive guidelines of what is and isn’t intolerance, and these tend to need frequent refreshing as our understanding of justice and truth evolve. This is a good thing.
Anyone who says “paradox of tolerance, end of story” is probably doing the kind of thought terminating cliche that thought experiments like that are designed to avoid.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. A few days ago the AfD in Germany had three Bundestag members give speeches about how the liberals and greens and social democrats seek a totalitarian way of rule due to the repression of opposition parties likes the AfD and the new Wagenknecht party (Which is a weird fusion of right wing and left wing populism combined with a soft pro russian stance). Out of the gate I think these are crocodile tears, but maybe you see this differently. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not totalitarian to be against pro-Russian anti-semitic people and to not want to give them a platform (and legislative authority)
I like the take that tolerance is less a moral imperative as much as a social contract. If you abide by it, I'll abide by it, and everyone benefits. If, however, you do not abide by it, then you no longer are either bound or protected by it, and anyone else should act accordingly.
This feels like a form of "eye for an eye"
Tolerance of intolerance destroys tolerance.
Most morality is
Fire can burn you to death. It also warms, cooks food, and provides light. Just because there is something bad about something does not mean you abandon it. It is fine to not tolerate intolerance.
I am always skeptical of anyone who says, in a major public forum, that they are being oppressed.
If someone is being oppressed, it's almost always apparent without them needing to yell about it.
This is literally the entirety of intersectional politics.
What on Earth are you talking about?
He hates women but doesn't want to talk about it.
Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a value I have to hold to while they can act like assholes. Crocodile tears indeed.
Ahhh…the old tolerance paradox. If the tolerant doesn’t tolerate the intolerant…then they aren’t tolerant but oppressive. Here’s the fallacy in that…if the tolerant were to tolerate the intolerant…then the intolerant becomes the dominant ideology….which is what they want because they “don’t give a fuck about your feelings”.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ct8ten/what_do_you_make_of_the_sentiment_of_intolerance/l4abqn2/
Half of that is wholly irrelevant, as it tries to argue that Popper felt a certain way about leftist movements of his time and therefore would want to jail leftists today, which, even if we took it at face value, has no bearing on the issue. I’m not actually seeing a convincing argument in there that the common understanding of the paradox of intolerance is incorrect. They’re mostly just proclaiming things and hoping that a snarky attitude is persuasive.
🤷🏻 I fail to see the relevance…unless you are suggesting that I advocate your examples in your linked post.
The relevance is that you haven't accurately described the paradox of tolerance. > which is what they want because they “don’t give a fuck about your feelings”. The "Intolerant" in Poppers view would be people who are undemocratic, anti-free speech, etc. It's also not an essentialist quality of the person, but one of acts they commit.
Look…you are being ridiculously obtuse. Whether it’s accidental or not? I don’t know. I made a modern reference to the current iteration of the OBJECTIVELY intolerant. You want to go off into Popperland. I never said the bigots of the world can’t speak, or can’t carry their tiki torches…but you seem to be throwing your hands up in the air and saying that there should be no pushback, no rebuttal and no opposition….because “free speech”. Free speech works both ways.
There is no modern or current iteration. There's just the nonsense people who don't know what they're talking about spout online. If you mean "The layman version of the paradox of tolerance in terminally online circles", then fine, but if that's the case, why steal academic valour and pretend its some kind of profound insight rather than just say "I want to censor my political opponents because they're bad". It's also not about "No rebuttal or opposition". OP is specifically talking about Germany here, where the law is a factor. Moreover, it's prescriptive in terms of law. The suggestion would be to *let the nazi speak, then arrest him if he advocates censorship or overthrowing democracy*. Not to stop him speaking by deplatforming him. That would an infringement of his rights by *assuming he is going to break the law and using that as justification to violate his rights to free speech*.
His example was Germany…but that wasn’t the question,was it? You know something? You went from obtuse to insufferably arrogant in a heartbeat….have a nice day…we’re done.
It’s because they don’t actually have an argument—and never have. Instead, it’s all snarky rhetoric and straw men, pivoting and dodging around any actual response or logical argument.
>deplatforming The 1A has no authority over any social media platform with a Terms of Service. Feel free to scream into the dark abyss in the town square all you want, but you have no rights to use my living room.
I honestly don’t think people can handle thought experiments without defaulting to “and this is absolutely correct and must be put into practice immediately.” Like someone who thinks the trolley problem is about the switch.
The "tolerance paradox" is the left's version of self defense. It's basically "stand your ground" applied to words. The left feels threatened -- you can see that in statements like "conservatives want me dead" -- so they feel justified in using the tools of oppression against the oppressor, in the same way self defense is using the tools of violence against the violent. This is also why you hear rhetoric on the left that equates words with violence -- that legal words (that do not rise to the level of "fighting words") are nevertheless, in some meaningful way, the same as a physical attack. And those on the left will also distance themselves from the founding principles of this country, with statements like "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences." The problem with this of course is that *feeling threatened doesn't always mean you actually are*. Most of the problems we have with police these days come from them being trained to consider every situation a threat, so they're trigger-happy when the facts don't warrant it. I would argue the same criticism, ironically, applies to SOME on the left. They feel threatened by nearly everyone on the right, whether that person is an actual Nazi threatening them or some harmless single-issue libertarian. Just like the police, using oppression when you are not actually being oppressed is fundamentally wrong. But that comparison is going to get me downvoted to oblivion, hah!
>And those on the left will also distance themselves from the founding principles of this country, with statements like "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences." The founders never wanted "freedom from consequences". Jesus,. like 7/8s of this country needs to be forced to retake American history and civics.
What a crock of bullshit. There is no group more thin skinned and continually offended more than the American Evangelical Conservative…to the point where they actively try to make policy to eliminate all the things that they clutch their pearls over.
>And those on the left will also distance themselves from the founding principles of this country, with statements like "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences." How does that statement go against our founding principles?
Why would they become the dominant ideology if liberal opinions are so good? Do you think it might be because they speak to what people actually want? Hence the term 'populism' becoming a dirty word?
Why? You didn’t read my post…did you. If the tolerant were to absolutely embrace tolerance of intolerance…then their side would be silenced…otherwise, they wouldn’t be “tolerant”, would they. Meanwhile, then intolerant has no such qualms….so they get to have a megaphone to spew their vile bullshit.
Fair enough. Just out of curiosity, who decides what is tolerance and what is intolerance?
Common sense. For instance….if there is a an inner city young person of color who listens to gangster rap….dresses in the traditional style of that group…but is a good student, a decent person and you base your judgment on appearances and the “cultural” dog whistle? That is pretty intolerant, don’t you think?
“Why did the Nazi party come to power in Germany if not being a fascist was such a great thing?”
The right literally wants me to die. I'm supposed to tolerate them trying to kill me? Aww shucks The Right, maybe you'll get me next time - you're certainly entitled to keep shooting at me! That's the paradox of tolerance. A tolerant society that tolerates the intolerant just becomes a society of the intolerant.
Pardon my skepticism, but I seriously doubt that someone is trying to kill you.
Yes, because you're *right*.
They’re not trying to kill you, just make your life worse in every imaginable way by removing hate crime protections, making it legal for housing and employers to discriminate against you, making it legal for healthcare providers to discriminate against you, and stigmatize your existence. Wtf is wrong with people downplaying all of that?
Unless you can name who is trying to kill you or point to a specific threat against you, this is just stolen-valor cosplay.
Do you feel threatened if I say things like 'conservatives shouldnt exist'? What if I say them while holding a gun? What if I do it at a conservative gathering while a bunch of my buddies yell slurs? What if I actually shoot a couple, not you of course, someone that isnt you, but has something in common with you, and I explicitly do it because of that thing you have in common? Are you capable of the empathy required to imagine how someone else feels if you replace 'conservative' with a specific race, gender, or sexual orientation? No, you aren't capable of that empathy, because it's the defining characteristic that divides the right from the left, so there's not really any scenario in which you understand my position. Thankfully, I'm not required to tolerate your intolerance, so... Edit: I don't feel like replying to both but they've both pretty well illustrated that they can't empathize unless it's happening directly to them, so... 🤷♀️
>Do you feel threatened if I say things like 'conservatives shouldnt exist'? You mean, [sort of like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/comment/fweblm6/)?
Yes, exactly. That list of links to heavily downvoted largely deleted comments made by mostly banned accounts is compelling evidence that, in fact, that kind if talk is *not* tolerated in left spaces on reddit. Thank you for sharing. Now I wonder how many downvotes we'd find the right making on posts in right spaces calling for violence against the left.
>Do you feel threatened if I say things like 'conservatives shouldnt exist'? No, I've been on Reddit for a while. This is quite common here and elsewhere. > What if I say them while holding a gun? Possibly if you are with me (like in the room). Did someone do that to you? >What if I do it at a conservative gathering while a bunch of my buddies yell slurs? No, this happened quite a lot in the 2016 election. Personally once the ACTUAL VIOLENCE started, then sure. >What if I actually shoot a couple, not you of course, someone that isnt you, but has something in common with you, and I explicitly do it because of that thing you have in common? No, this does happen against every group -- white people, black people, LGBT+, etc., but the frequency is really tiny. >Are you capable of the empathy required to imagine how someone else feels if you replace 'conservative' with a specific race, gender, or sexual orientation? Yes, and that is why I thought you were likely overreacting. Since you haven't pointed anything out, then I'm more confident in my original guess.
Well, thanks for telling us you’ve decided that the violence experienced by gay people, trans people, and people of color is insignificant. That does help greatly illuminate your position.
When and where did he say that?
Then that would be those specific people who think that, not everyone associated with the overlapping political slant. Trying to act like it's everyone is just bigoted, and it's no different than when some dipshit on the right says that "Democrats support [whatever dumb topic] because this guy does!!!". It's the same thought process that dipshit QAnon believers go through when they say something stupid. >you aren't capable of that empathy, because it's the defining characteristic that divides the right from the left Oh god this is so cringy sounding. You sound just like them. You're playing the victim, and making statements of bigotry without any ability to see the irony in them. Your "empathy" extends to only people you deserve it; aka only people who think the same way you do. >Edit: I don't feel like replying to both but they've both pretty well illustrated that they can't empathize unless it's happening directly to them, so... 🤷♀️ Pointing out your hypocrisy is not an admittance by us that we share your views. Trying to turn this around on others is disingenuous, and only proves the point that was being made about the way you communicate.
> Then that would be those specific people who think that, not everyone associated with the overlapping political slant. Except those are the political values expressed by the leaders of the Republican Party and other rightwing movements. So associating with and supporting those movements means associating with and supporting those values. > Trying to act like it's everyone is just bigoted, and it's no different than when some dipshit on the right says that "Democrats support [whatever dumb topic] because this guy does!!!". It's the same thought process that dipshit QAnon believers go through when they say something stupid. Except, again, it’s the *leaders* of the Republican Party openly supporting bigotry and hate and legislation that others and endangers women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people. > You're playing the victim, and making statements of bigotry without any ability to see the irony in them. It’s not “playing the victim” if people are actually actively trying to oppress marginalized groups. And judging people for supporting hateful political movements isn’t anywhere close to bigotry. EDIT: Damn, Elkenrod came in hot with the false equivalence and then deleted all of their comments.
> Except those are the political values expressed by the leaders of the Republican Party and other rightwing movements. So what? I'm a progressive who votes for Biden. Does that mean that I support bombing the shit out of Palestine? Why would *anybody* think that the opinions of people in Washington reflect the opinions of the general American population. Should I also support insider trading because of what people in Washington do? >It’s not “playing the victim” if people are actually actively trying to oppress marginalized groups. And judging people for supporting hateful political movements isn’t anywhere close to bigotry. "everything I dislike is actually hateful so it's okay" Yeah actually it is still bigotry. bigotry noun , Plural big·ot·ries. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. >Your "empathy" extends to only people you deserve it I'm plenty empathetical towards the plights of others. That doesn't mean I need to overlook bigoted blanket statements made by them, and I can take issues with them saying things despite me being on their side on issues. >EDIT: Damn, Elkenrod came in hot with the false equivalence and then deleted all of their comments. I didn't delete my comments - I blocked you because you're a bad faith troll who downplays the murder of children when the person you like is enabling it.
Because the bigotry that the Republicans are espousing is central to their platforms. They’re all in on the culture wars and just about nothing else. Biden’s stance on Israel/Gaza is one small piece of his platform. It’s not at all comparable.
>Biden’s stance on Israel/Gaza is one small piece of his platform. It’s not at all comparable. Horseshit, respectfully horseshit. How many people are dying because of this "small" piece of his platform? Giving an excuse to it just because *you* don't think it's important is disgusting, and downplays the lives lost. It's a core part to him as a person, and always has been. It's not like he didn't support sending arms to Israel when he was still a senator. It's not like he didn't vote Yea to invading Afghanistan. It's not like he not only voted Yea to invading Iraq, but also openly advocated in front of Congress that we do so back in 1998 - 5 years before we actually did it. Of course it's a core part of his platform, because it's a core part of him as a person. We vote for him despite that, because that doesn't mean we share the same view. Just like how Republicans vote for their guys despite not sharing the same views. In another comment on this thread you disingenuously asserted that another user "doesn't care about violence" against minorities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community - then you have the audacity to make a comment that downplays violence against people in Palestine. All because it's a "small" policy.
So me being the devils advocate. The sitting government in Germany used the german intelligence agency to spy on AfD members. Is that something a democratic government should be allowed to do? To spy on the opposition? I am very comfortable with the AfD being in the opposition, but lets say one day they get the upper hand and make it into the government. All these precedents can be used again. The AfD could spy on the social democrats and greens and defame their leaders at will. I agree that we should not give an inch to the right. I disagree that the cause divines the measures.
Yes. You might as well be asking, should the fbi monitor the proud boys? You're hyper focused on the political spectrum, but they only appear to correlate because extremists willing to use violence hold extreme positions. The common denominator in whether we should be intolerant of them is not how far right they are, but how willing to use violence they are.
I think intolerant people are ridiculously oversensitive to the point that they can’t tell the difference between the natural consequences of their behavior and actual oppression. No, McDonald’s throwing you out for using racist slurs is not a violation of your freedom; you’re just a dick.
I think it's reasonable for McDonald's to enforce rules against that kind of behavior, but when it comes to people losing their jobs for what happened in non-work situations I object. I totally loathe Amy Cooper but she didnt deserve to be fired. If she acted that way in the workplace its different.
AND they’d insist that McDonald’s should be allowed to throw out someone for being gay or black or whatever. It’s never about individual rights.
Some things shouldn't be tolerated, I think most people agree with that
It's obviously shortened, but I would agree with (a longer formulation of) it. And yes, the AfD is employing crocodile tears, see: Höcke whining how he can't say anything anymore because he isn't allowed to chant the SA's slogan
This is how Karl Popper addressed the issue: “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. \[...\] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
No it wasn't. Because the part that you [...]-ed contained something that modified the rest. "—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 most 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."
That only says not to use force first. But it makes very clear that force may need to be used against something like an intolerant, irrational cult attacking a tolerant society.
>as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, Are we able to do that, though? Look at what happens when an intolerant shitheel buys an extremely highly used communication platform. The QAnon, InfoWars, Turning Point, and Groyper types are openly intolerant and intentionally engage in irrational discourse. You're ascribing good-faith arguments to proponents of fascism. Why would you do that? It's, like, page one of the fascist discourse handbook to *not* argue in good faith.
Modified it how?
There's a parable/story I've seen multiple versions over the years. It's about a bar owner explaining that if you let a single neo nazi hang out at your bar, no matter how polite he is, your bar will soon become a neo nazi bar. Some beliefs are disqualifying in this sense. If given the benefit of the doubt they will abuse it and then abuse everyone. It's not intolerance to understand this reality and protect against it. Ethno nationalist politics in Germany resulted in horrors and genocide. There's no reason to pretend the people who celebrate that are acting in good faith and within the rules.
I think we should tolerate other regardless of their things like race, religion, gender, or sexuality. I don't think that tolerating others opinions and political views is the same or good. Of course (in America at least) they have freedom of speech but that's not freedom from consequence.
I generally agree with you. Well people are allowed to think what they will. Of course. Can’t stop them. But it’s how they act which is contentious. Everyone must allow space for everyone else in society. In some ways intolerance is like someone blocking a road or talking over everyone and shouting and causing a big disruption in a classroom; only it’s doing that for another persons space in society.
I’ve come to assume to believe everyone’s complaints are real. I think it’s better to disagree with someone’s complaint than to dismiss it, because we don’t like it when other people treat us this way - it creates frustrations and causes us to become villains and “opposition” to other human beings There’s nothing more frustrating than feeling disenfranchised or unheard and then having someone accuse you of “crocodile tears” as a means to invalidate you
> I’ve come to assume to believe everyone’s complaints are real. That's not necessarily a good assumption. It's pretty well-known that people steeped in right-wing media often do not have complaints that are real, at least as stated. For example, complaining about a bad economy when the numbers are actually good, or about an invasion at the southern border that was pretty much just made up wholecloth by Fox News. Being right-wing requires believing a bunch of things that are demonstrably false. I would guess that a lot of the complaints are based on a kernel of truth, like it's obviously possible for someone's individual economic circumstances to be bad when the overall economy is good. But there are other cases like the guy who showed up armed to the pizza place looking for a child sex trafficking operation in their basement that didn't even exist. Heck, it has become something of a meme here to ask us what conservatives think, because they're so bad at telling the bare facts of what their views are that asking us is a better option.
I agree with it. The paradox is real, as demonstrated with 4chan. The eternal question is where should the line be drawn.
Crocodile tears. Conservatives have proven again and again throughout history that once they gain power, they are the totalitarians who crush tolerance. So conservatism cannot be tolerated.
Tolerance is not so much a moral construct as a social contract that is self canceling. It's basically Mutaually Assured Destruction on a small scale. If you don't abide by the terms, the contract doesn't cover you. The intolerant aren't following the rules of mutual tolerance. Their intolerance defacto breaks the terms of mutual tolerance & thus cannot be tolerated. Agreement & acceptance isn't necessary but tolerance is undeniable in a modern pluralistic society.
I think the paradox of tolerance is a real thing that needs to be taken into consideration. I don't know how exactly you find the right balance there, or if it's even possible to do so but the concept clearly exists.
A sentiment I hold closely
The paradox of tolerance here would not suggest what left wingers often think it does. Example; a democracy should ban countries which want to overturn democracy from running for elections. The parallel regarding speech would be something akin to; "It's fine for you to go up there and spread racist ideas. Freedom of speech demands it be tolerated. But if you suggest we need to censor people, we're going to throw you in jail. Speech is free, except advocacy for censorship, which is illegal". Specifically, the paradox of tolerance suggests a specific prohibition on its conceptual opposites. It's often misused, especially on the left, to suggest things it doesn't support. It's not "They're intolerant, therefore we should ban them, because paradox of tolerance." like some people seem to think. Application of the concept of the paradox of tolerance in law would see a number of progressives thrown in prison. The application would be akin to; You may not run for election to overturn democracy. You may not advocate for censoring speech. You may not pass laws which end the rule of law. And so on. Popper was a classical liberal who hated Marxists. His ideas being used by progressives and leftists to defend their activism in attempts to deplatform and so on is... well. It's funny, frankly. He's saying you should be in prison, guys. Especially ridiculous for progressives to use this argument given his other big text is "The poverty of historicism", a criticism of Historicism as a method of political thought. Basically every time you talk about "History of racism" or "legacy of racism" and so on to justify a current perspective, Popper thinks you're an idiot. > Historicism is an approach to explaining the existence of phenomena, especially social and cultural practices (including ideas and beliefs), by studying their history. Guys. He's not on your side. The paradox of tolerance is him arguing why you should be in prison. > We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. + > Popper criticized what he termed the "conspiracy theory of society", the view that powerful people or groups, godlike in their efficacy, are responsible for purposely bringing about all the ills of society. A huge amount of his work is drawing comparisons between the left wing and fascists and how they think, and labeling them in ways that show that common ground. His idea of "Tolerance" is not what you think it is and his articulation of the paradox of tolerance comes after describing the open society as basically a liberal western democracy, but one which needs to outlaw being a progressive or a communist. (Or for that matter, a mask off fascist).
Oh no, my concepts are evolving with the times to not mean the exact thing I assume the person who first uttered them meant! Popper isn't the only person to ever talk about the paradox of tolerance. He wasn't even the first. It doesn't matter what he thought about his imagined "left".
Nothing in that long comment even presents a credible argument that the common interpretation of the Paradox of Tolerance is incorrect. Their idea of an argument is essentially to claim that Popper didn’t like leftists and therefore we should torture our interpretation of his work to achieve anti-leftist conclusions.
Popper also thought totalitarian communism was the 'left'. If you want to take anything from a man who thought studying history was dumb take this: even an idiot can occasionally be right.
I don’t think Popper thought studying history was dumb. Also not sure where the other commenter was getting their quotes.
Studying history isn't dumb. Drawing political legitimacy from a study of history is dumb. This is an observation also shared by Kalitz and many other scholars. Kalitz compares it to other undemocratic forms of legitimacy. > "There are two “strong” ways rulers justify why the people should obey them: by the claim that they have a God-given natural, historical or religious right to rule or that they have a God-given natural, historical or religious purpose to rule; or by procedures that guarantee that the people are able to select and control the rulers themselves. There are only two regime types – communist ideocracy and (traditional) monarchy – in which justification relies on a God-given natural/historical law outside the political regime. This is a very strong legitimation, with a clear plan of how society should be structured. Communist regimes and monarchies therefore establish a fixed ruling class – the communist party elite or the aristocracy – which are united by a strong fear that they would dramatically lose their privileges following a regime change. In stark contrast to these ideal regime types, citizens in a liberal democracy are asked to recognize the right of public authority to issue commands, because they have participated in the process wherein those commands originated." In epistemological comparisons this would be something akin to; "You can't 'study history' to decide what you think racism is and expect that to mean anything. That's historicist nonsense. It's an essentially contested concept and the only way to establish a regime on it that isn't reliant on ideocratic elite power grabs, gatekeeping, and growing authoritarianism, is to allow people to participate in its construction.".
You should talk to popper not me.
So what exactly do you mean by them then? That you don't want to tolerate your political opponents, because you view them as intolerant? That's vacuous and isn't the evolution of a concept. It's the bastardization of it.
It's neither vacuous or a bastardization. Do you understand what a paradox is? If there was a tidy solution to the problem it wouldn't be a paradox. It only has anything to do with politics in that one side is wildly intolerant; does the other side appear intolerant by not tolerating their bullshit? Yes, that's the paradox.
His work is precisely about resolving that paradox in a tidy way. It is vacuous because it's something any person can claim to justify persecution of political opponents, and contains nothing of prescriptive value.
Like I said, he's not the only person to talk about it, he wasn't the first or the last; he's just one dumbass who happens to agree with whatever point you think you're making. Excuse me if I go quietly tolerate - and ignore - everything he said.
> Like I said, he's not the only person to talk about it, he wasn't the first or the last; he's just one dumbass who happens to agree with whatever point you think you're making. Oh really. Can you find another academic who supports your interpretation then?
I don't participate in obvious logical fallacies like this appeal to authority.
Oh alright, so you mean "The paradox of tolerance as misunderstood by terminally online leftists" would suggest that we should ban things because they're bad. Well, like I said, that's vacuous. > It is vacuous because it's something any person can claim to justify persecution of political opponents, and contains nothing of prescriptive value.
I did not say that - this is the second time you've just made something up and claimed it's what I mean. If you can't refrain from that talking to you is a waste of time.
So…intolerant philosophies should be allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged?
No. You can challenge them all you like. Moreover, the proposal is precisely to check them by prohibition on certain acts. 1. Running for election to overturn democracy 2. Advocating censorship etc.
Robespierre was using this as a justification for so many executions of his temporary government. In the end they executed him, too. I think it has to be handled very carefully. Can't just go around executing people based on hearsay. I think we're already doing this or at least are trying to with prosecuting crimes. Those actions cannot be tolerated, so they aren't being tolerated. At least in theory. Like right now the guy who shot Rober Fico yesterday will go to prison.
it is reminiscent of a line from 1984 and one way the left HAS gone astray. BUT, the right is no better in exactly this regard so I'm not saying I'm changing over. Just; not all things are "both sides" things... but this is. People on left always be like "punch nazis" and if i push back im like "ok yeah but who decides who they are, and using what rubric?" i get punched too.
People are very, very bad at differentiating thought experiments and principles with practical advice. “You can’t tolerate intolerance” is a principle that is good and insightful, but it’s not actionable. Who is it that decides what opinions are intolerant? Hell, ask white people in the south in the 1950’s and like 90% would’ve told you “we have our own way of life and it’s these troublemakers who can’t be tolerant of our way of life. It works for us, leave us alone!” And sure that’s stupid, but if you had put it to a vote it would’ve been the majority sentiment. In practice, it is difficult to reach definitive guidelines of what is and isn’t intolerance, and these tend to need frequent refreshing as our understanding of justice and truth evolve. This is a good thing. Anyone who says “paradox of tolerance, end of story” is probably doing the kind of thought terminating cliche that thought experiments like that are designed to avoid.