Paradox of Tolerance

[Guest]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Quote

The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

 

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.^[1]

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.

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

 

Quote

In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."^[2]

Quote

The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.^[4] Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.^[5]

 

[Lucas Monteiro]

I believe that it is impossible to have unlimited freedom of expression, after all, laws for example exist simply so that certain things are forbidden to be done, therefore, preventing freedom of expression in a certain way. To tolerate intolerance itself is a mistake, since just as the paradox of tolerance says, intolerants would decimate tolerant society.

Giving total freedom of expression to a citizen would be catastrophic, reaching the point of rising to the principles of anarchism, without state intervention, society would be totally messy and without direction. Tolerance goes in this same principle.

[Lost247365]

Toleration of "intolerance" is not "Tolerance."  It is APATHY.  Toleration requires reciprocation.

[Doctor13]

2 hours ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

*chuckles happily* This is great.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[everywhere and nowhere]

Does the Left tolerate Muslim extremists? I don't think so. The Left is against islamophobia, not for full tolerance to any behavior of Muslims.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I don't think this agrees with your views as much as you think it does.

It's not up to you to decide what "agrees with my views" or not.

 

As Nowhere Girl said, being against Islamophobia doesn't mean accepting extremism.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Homer]

How 'bout not singing the old left v right boohoo song and talking about the actual issue instead?

 

Tolerance in itself is nothing more than acknowledging the presence of [something]. Tolerance doesn't mean that one has to agree with [something].

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Based on what I know of your views as you've expressed them here, this theory does not suit them a well as you think it does.

Again it's not for you to decide.

(also I didn't actually even say anything about "how well it suits my views", I posted some quotes about the theory, I hoped it would inspire more interesting responses than "this doesn't fit your views as well as you think it does")

 

9 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

But when you define anything negative said about Muslims as Islamaphobia, then they are one in the same.

Generalizations against all muslims, yeah...

The majority aren't extremists.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Homer said:

How 'bout not singing the old left v right boohoo song and talking about the actual issue instead?

 

Tolerance in itself is nothing more than acknowledging the presence of [something]. Tolerance doesn't mean that one has to agree with [something].

I think it's more about allowance than acknowledgment, not trying to suppress or get rid of

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance

Quote

a :  sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

b :  the act of allowing something

[Yatogami]

The theory described is an all or nothing situation. It claims that to be tolerant, you cannot be tolerant of any intolerance. This means you cannot tolerate/allow disagreements, and to not tolerate them is to eliminate them because co-existing is impossible due to the intolerant eventually destroying the tolerant. Whether that be via incarceration, slaughter, or exile (Like the Gulags, or death camps). That is what it means to be intolerant, of intolerance. This reminds me of the Horseshoe Theory. 

[Doctor13]

4 hours ago, Yato said:

This means you cannot tolerate/allow disagreements

 

Didn't think I would get involved in a political/philosophical discussion here, but why not? LOL. I guess I need to get a load of my chest here...

 

I wouldn't say this means you can't allow disagreements. I'm not religious, but I'm tolerant of other people's religious beliefs. Intolerance of intolerance doesn't mean you can't disagree. It just means you allow other people to disagree and to come to their own conclusions about life and everything in it, so long as those conclusions don't diminish the worth of other people or abuse them for what they believe. For instance, I would not be tolerant of religious acts which persecute those of other religions. That is when intolerance is necessary, and I think this is the meaning of the theory's conclusion. If a civilization were to become tolerant to the degree that it allowed a religious sect - or any sort of group which didn't approve of dissenters, for that matter - to control and abuse other religions & groups without being confronted, then tolerance itself would die. The religious sect or group which has gained control unopposed would then set the scene for intolerance of everything that is different from it. 

 

It's fine to disagree - it's good, even, as disagreements faced with an open mind can help people to grow and discuss tough questions.

It is not fine to verbally & physically abuse others or take away their rights because they are different.

 

Just my two cents

[Cimmerian]

I find it interesting because, presuming the theory is true, the very act of becoming intolerant of the intolerant-- in order to theoretically protect the tolerant-- leads to the tolerant becoming intolerant by definition (even if done in the most idealistic best case scenario). 

 

Don't get me wrong; to some extent I agree with the theory, but not on the level of speech so much as actions. To some extent you would have to protect against the intolerant extremes (those who speak to incite harm, or most especially those who seek to physically harm the groups they do not tolerate), but I don't think becoming intolerant of speech that is only representing intolerance in all it's forms is the answer. To me you then become intolerant in the very way that should be protected against, and you essentially become a mirror image of the behavior found to be reprehensible. To accept the theory to the extent of *all* intolerant speech would be to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

[Ray Nimrod]

Agree with Cimmerian. Don't get me wrong, I think some ideas or believes are dangerous for society, and should be called out as such, and even fought against if necessary.

 

However, I don't think blaming, shaming or silencing the individuals behind those ideas is either moral or efficient, because it would probably lead them to suffer and radicalize, while their ideas are probably just the consequences of the environement they live in.  

 

 

[Yatogami]

On 8/14/2017 at 0:57 AM, Doctor13 said:

 

Didn't think I would get involved in a political/philosophical discussion here, but why not? LOL. I guess I need to get a load of my chest here...

 

I wouldn't say this means you can't allow disagreements. I'm not religious, but I'm tolerant of other people's religious beliefs. Intolerance of intolerance doesn't mean you can't disagree. It just means you allow other people to disagree and to come to their own conclusions about life and everything in it, so long as those conclusions don't diminish the worth of other people or abuse them for what they believe. For instance, I would not be tolerant of religious acts which persecute those of other religions. That is when intolerance is necessary, and I think this is the meaning of the theory's conclusion. If a civilization were to become tolerant to the degree that it allowed a religious sect - or any sort of group which didn't approve of dissenters, for that matter - to control and abuse other religions & groups without being confronted, then tolerance itself would die. The religious sect or group which has gained control unopposed would then set the scene for intolerance of everything that is different from it. 

 

It's fine to disagree - it's good, even, as disagreements faced with an open mind can help people to grow and discuss tough questions.

It is not fine to verbally & physically abuse others or take away their rights because they are different.

 

Just my two cents

I was speaking from a practical perspective. How does one go about being intolerant of intolerance on a societal level? I can only think of arresting people, and throwing them in jail. Or just straight up killing them, since the odds are they won't change. OR even worse, invent ideological conversion therapy like some kind of dystopian sci-fi film.

[Doctor13]

1 hour ago, Yato said:

How does one go about being intolerant of intolerance on a societal level? I can only think of arresting people, and throwing them in jail. Or just straight up killing them, since the odds are they won't change.

I'd say arresting them, yeah. Laws against hate crimes are this kind of intolerance of intolerance. 

[Yatogami]

Just now, Doctor13 said:

I'd say arresting them, yeah. Laws against hate crimes are this kind of intolerance of intolerance. 

Ok, and do you see how abusable that is? 

 

Hate is to vague to define in law. It can be defined as anything, and the moment the government gets the power to say what is hate, and what isn't hate. They can make all the laws they want to erase their competition. Imagine if Republicans ruled that Liberalism itself is hate speech against Conservatism. What do you think will happen? Republicans will seize power, because they can just arrest all their liberal competitors and throw them in jail. It is just a matter of time, in any instance once that power is available. Where there is power, there will always be abuse. 

[Kelpie]

There ARE means to regulate what hate is. That's why all law texts are so weird and hard to understand for people who didn't study it.  There's a difference between a different opinion and hate. I also like to think that it's an easy one to make, certainly easier than to find out as a judge if someone should be sentenced with manslaughter or murder. 

[Yatogami]

4 minutes ago, Kelpie said:

There ARE means to regulate what hate is. That's why all law texts are so weird and hard to understand for people who didn't study it.  There's a difference between a different opinion and hate. I also like to think that it's an easy one to make, certainly easier than to find out as a judge if someone should be sentenced with manslaughter or murder. 

Not if people also insist on breaking down the difference between word and violence. 

[Kelpie]

Just now, Yato said:

Not if people also insist on breaking down the difference between word and violence. 

If you've never had to experience violent words towards you, I'm very glad for you. Other people didn't get this lucky, sadly. 

[Yatogami]

6 minutes ago, Kelpie said:

If you've never had to experience violent words towards you, I'm very glad for you. Other people didn't get this lucky, sadly. 

Did you just assume I have never experienced violence towards my amazing self?

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Guest]

Tangential question: What is Islamophobia? Because I hate Islam (the idea), but I don't necessarily hate the people who practice it (Muslims). Same with Christians, racists, etc.

[The Joker]

5 hours ago, kei_ said:

Tangential question: What is Islamophobia? Because I hate Islam (the idea), but I don't necessarily hate the people who practice it (Muslims). Same with Christians, racists, etc.

Its up to you to define it. There is a tendency for people in this country to define islamaophobia in varying and often inconsistent ways. I hate islam as well, and I think that countries that have islam as their state religion live in a medieval life in many respects, that being said I don't dislike muslims any more than I dislike extremely religious christians (as you've stated). I think someone with a sufficient level of self awareness can know the distinction between irrational hatred towards a group of people and their ideology, and reasoned hatred.

[Guest]

Islamophobia is discrimination against people because they are Muslim (or perceived to be), it's usually heavily linked with racism against people of Middle Eastern/North African descent. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Islamophobia is discrimination against people because they are Muslim (or perceived to be), it's usually heavily linked with racism against people of Middle Eastern/North African descent. 

This matches my definition. According to this definition, I'm not Islamophobic. That being said, the paradox of tolerance is an interesting one. As a person with anarchist inclinations I fully stand against restricting free speech, left or right, religious or anti-religious, fascist or authoritarian communist, etc. Let the bad ideologies fall where they may, reason about them as individuals and come together and "de-bias" one another.

 

_{I know it's idealistic, but I'm up for reasonable discourse.}

[Yatogami]

Islamophobia is xenophobia with a fancy name.

[ben8884]

I dunno if I would say that. Xenophobia is a hatred of foreigners regardless of their religion, Islamaphobia is a hatred of Muslims regardless of where they are from. 

[Randomchaos]

I think what makes these discussions so hard is that people use buzz-words rather than discussing the actual issue. What I like to see is people actually discussing something without using words that are insults, and if they find that they are at an impasse, either agree to disagree, or drop it rather than insulting each other. 

 

Personally I just don't talk to people who are xenophobic since I do not believe we will ever agree, I will also not agree to disagree when it comes to intolerance of someone just because of their ethnicity.

 

Tbh, I've been called an Islamophobe before because I said something along the lines of "Islam says this...." etc. and rather than actually discussing it the other person chose to attack me. I just said "Well if you can't discuss this without insulting me I'm just going to drop it." 

 

I think there is a difference between discussing what a religion believes and being "afraid" of it. It is not wrong to discuss what a religion believes and tbph I think the ones who use buzz-words when such discussion pops up are the ones who are phobic. There is even a word

 

Allodoxaphobia: Morbid fear of opinions.