The Paradox of Tolerance; a discussion.

[Amused]

Since the right to speech free of government prosecution or control is being confounded with the social consequences of such, shall we have a debate of the issue at the core of this subject?

The Paradox of Tolerance.

The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant force, by virtue of its tolerance, allows intolerant forces to limit and ultimately destroy tolerance.

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 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."

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."

In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".[3]

Tolerance and freedom of speech
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. 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.

Homophily and intolerance
The relation between homophily (a preference for interacting with those with similar traits) and intolerance is manifested when a tolerant person is faced with the dilemma of choosing between establishing a positive relationship with a tolerant individual of a dissimilar group, or establishing a positive relationship with an intolerant group member. In the first case, the intolerant in-group member disapproves the established link with an other-group individual, leading necessarily to a negative relationship with his tolerant equal; while in the second case, the negative relationship toward the other-group individual is endorsed by the intolerant in-group member and promotes a positive relationship between them.

This dilemma has been considered by Aguiar and Parravano in Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks, modeling a community of individuals whose relationships are governed by a modified form of the Heider balance theory.

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

 

[Amused]

More on Karl Popper:

 

[Jhhnn]

What it amounts to is that the intolerant must, at some point, be thwarted from reaching their goals if we're to have a free egalitarian society. When that happens, they'll whine piteously, of course, claim to espouse the things they hate the most.

 

[Amused]

What it amounts to is that the intolerant must, at some point, be thwarted from reaching their goals if we're to have a free egalitarian society. When that happens, they'll whine piteously, of course, claim to espouse the things they hate the most.

As is so painfully evidenced in these current threads by the usual suspects. "They won't let us spread our racial and religious intolerance! They're nazis!"

Yeah... no.

This concept is the very root of the issue in all these threads and I think is what all of them are boiling down to when you strip away the deflections, projections and denials of the intolerant alt-right.

They basically are screaming, "they are intolerant of our intolerance! Hypocrites!"

Damn right we are. If we tolerant your intolerance all we will be left with is your intolerance.

 

[soulcougher73]

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."

This is how i've always believed it should be handled, and as far as i'm concerned its a shut and closed case for me.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Tolerance is like peace. Sometimes you have to crack some heads to keep or obtain it. It's not a 100% all or nothing proposition, just a level of what you'll put up with before becoming "intolerant". I have noticeds that degrees of tolerance seem to correlate with one's authoritarian vs libertarian leanings.

My neighbors and I tolerated the large groups of neighborhood kids playing basketball in the alley, littering, hitting cars, pissing in our yards, and busting our fences for years. They were loud and obnoxious and never ending but they were just neighborhood kids playing ball, and not slinging dope.
Couple of years ago, due to social media, carloads of teens from other neighborhoods started showing up and chasing off the younger kids. They were smoking blunts, yelling at the home owners, and one kid even broke into someone's garage and took a dump. In the course of about 2 weeks the entire neighborhood rightly became very intolerant and the basketball hoop went away.

There are limits and just like politics there has to be balance. Nobody should be 100% either way (extremists).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Tolerance is like peace. Sometimes you have to crack some heads to keep or obtain it. It's not a 100% all or nothing proposition, just a level of what you'll put up with before becoming "intolerant". I have noticeds that degrees of tolerance seem to correlate with one's authoritarian vs libertarian leanings.

My neighbors and I tolerated the large groups of neighborhood kids playing basketball in the alley, littering, hitting cars, pissing in our yards, and busting our fences for years. They were loud and obnoxious and never ending but they were just neighborhood kids playing ball, and not slinging dope.
Couple of years ago, due to social media, carloads of teens from other neighborhoods started showing up and chasing off the younger kids. They were smoking blunts, yelling at the home owners, and one kid even broke into someone's garage and took a dump. In the course of about 2 weeks the entire neighborhood rightly became very intolerant and the basketball hoop went away.

There are limits and just like politics there has to be balance. Nobody should be 100% either way (extremists).

I'm intolerant of physical violence and consequently I would resort to it if necessary to defend another. I disagree with how Popper framed his statement. The paradox exists only when there exists an all or nothing situation. Since that condition does not exist in the real world we are faced with a false dilemma.

There are no unlimited rights. Every freedom carries a mandate of responsible use. I can't yell fire in a theater for example and expect to get away with it. We can rightly use violence at need to defend ourselves while an attacker using the same means has no legal or moral justification.

So yes we can use appropriate means to oppose positions we find harmful, but there's a problem with that. When two parties have differing perspectives who decides who is being intolerant of who? The Right thinks the Left oppresses it and the Left the reverse. So one crushes the other? All that means is that the winner has the most power, not a superior perspective.

That is why we must tolerate what WE consider intolerance to some degree otherwise we become the moral dictators of the world. Who wants me being the all-powerful arbiter of what you can and cannot say? I should hope no one.

Yes some speech should be held up as despicable. Some should be challenged, but there are no absolute scenarios nor should there be.

 

[agent00f]

Since the right to speech free of government prosecution or control is being confounded with the social consequences of such, shall we have a debate of the issue at the core of this subject?

The Paradox of Tolerance.

The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant force, by virtue of its tolerance, allows intolerant forces to limit and ultimately destroy tolerance.

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 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."

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."

In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".[3]

Tolerance and freedom of speech
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. 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.

Homophily and intolerance
The relation between homophily (a preference for interacting with those with similar traits) and intolerance is manifested when a tolerant person is faced with the dilemma of choosing between establishing a positive relationship with a tolerant individual of a dissimilar group, or establishing a positive relationship with an intolerant group member. In the first case, the intolerant in-group member disapproves the established link with an other-group individual, leading necessarily to a negative relationship with his tolerant equal; while in the second case, the negative relationship toward the other-group individual is endorsed by the intolerant in-group member and promotes a positive relationship between them.

This dilemma has been considered by Aguiar and Parravano in Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks, modeling a community of individuals whose relationships are governed by a modified form of the Heider balance theory.

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

Far prior to this, Thomas Hobbes talked of the need for a greater policing entity/presence a la the leviathan. Subsequent discussion of the matter concerned how to determine the particulars of that governing force, which can crack the heads that need be. Without venturing into theory we can at least say that in practice western democratic systems work well, and they provide some ideas of what's tolerated or not.

Generally speaking one of the greater accomplishment of western liberalism in the last century is to make bigotry considered a social ill, which has shaped the boundaries of acceptable behavior for even the most degenerates among us, ie "In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue"". That's why most racists these days won't brag about it and even deny it, even if they still identify to some degree with those who do.

 

[Moonbeam]

When one comes up against the notion of paradox one approaches a problem in which there can occur a transindental insight into the nature of reality that collapses the paradox in question.

I believe the question of the paradox of tolerance affords an applicable example. Ask yourself why intolerance exists. What is it at an emotional level. How does it arise and is there a cure. Is it a natural human condition or the product of conditioning. Are you intolerance free and if not why not.

I believe the riddle of intolerance isn't solved but simply disappears with self understanding.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

And you're asking people like imported_taj and pcgeek and especially blue max to understand themselves? Not in this lifetime.

 

[brycejones]

Great subject, I hold out hope certain members will reflect and respond honestly.

 

[agent00f]

Tolerance is like peace. Sometimes you have to crack some heads to keep or obtain it. It's not a 100% all or nothing proposition, just a level of what you'll put up with before becoming "intolerant". I have noticeds that degrees of tolerance seem to correlate with one's authoritarian vs libertarian leanings.

My neighbors and I tolerated the large groups of neighborhood kids playing basketball in the alley, littering, hitting cars, pissing in our yards, and busting our fences for years. They were loud and obnoxious and never ending but they were just neighborhood kids playing ball, and not slinging dope.
Couple of years ago, due to social media, carloads of teens from other neighborhoods started showing up and chasing off the younger kids. They were smoking blunts, yelling at the home owners, and one kid even broke into someone's garage and took a dump. In the course of about 2 weeks the entire neighborhood rightly became very intolerant and the basketball hoop went away.

There are limits and just like politics there has to be balance. Nobody should be 100% either way (extremists).

Generally in game theory reciprocating strategies tend to work best. Ie. treat degens as they would others.

When one comes up against the notion of paradox one approaches a problem in which there can occur a transindental insight into the nature of reality that collapses the paradox in question.

I believe the question of the paradox of tolerance affords an applicable example. Ask yourself why intolerance exists. What is it at an emotional level. How does it arise and is there a cure. Is it a natural human condition or the product of conditioning. Are you intolerance free and if not why not.

I believe the riddle of intolerance isn't solved but simply disappears with self understanding.

"Paradoxes" are mostly rhetorical anomalies, a result of particular linguistic definition. In this case "tolerant" as an abstract concept (meaning there is no real world equivalent, like say a car, where true paradoxes are rare) is just defined in such a way that it's "logically" impossible to tolerate the intolerant. For more examples of rhetorical miscues, see oxymorons.

More scientifically speaking, intolerance is central to group adhesion given it's the act of shunning outsiders. It exists due to the evolutionary/selfish advantages of enforcing cohesive social groups.

 

[Jhhnn]

Generally in game theory reciprocating strategies tend to work best. Ie. treat degens as they would others.



"Paradoxes" are mostly rhetorical anomalies, a result of particular linguistic definition. In this case "tolerant" as an abstract concept (meaning there is no real world equivalent, like say a car, where true paradoxes are rare) is just defined in such a way that it's "logically" impossible to tolerate the intolerant. For more examples of rhetorical miscues, see oxymorons.

More scientifically speaking, intolerance is central to group adhesion given it's the act of shunning outsiders. It exists due to the evolutionary/selfish advantages of enforcing cohesive social groups.

It's also used as a means to divide & conquer in more diverse cultures, you know, like America.The right wing version of it has served Repub politicians well since at least 1994. It will serve less well the less white America becomes & that means they'll grab what they can while they can. Greed is like that.

 

[agent00f]

It's also used as a means to divide & conquer in more diverse cultures, you know, like America.The right wing version of it has served Repub politicians well since at least 1994. It will serve less well the less white America becomes & that means they'll grab what they can while they can. Greed is like that.

I'm pretty sure intolerance of outsiders has been around with american conservatism since well before 1994.

 

[sandorski]

And you're asking people like imported_taj and pcgeek and especially blue max to understand themselves? Not in this lifetime.

Thing is, they have a type of understanding of this very paradox. Their Intolerance comes from their perceived Intolerance of others. Where they fail is in misunderstanding that their Intolerance is dependent on infringing on the liberty of others. In order to do this though they have convinced themselves that they are the ones being subject to Intolerance.

 

[woolfe9998]

I understand the paradox, and I have no problem with the notion that being tolerant does not require us to tolerate intolerance. However, it all depends on what we mean by that. If by that we mean that intolerant speech is to be met with counter-speech and/or social stigma, then I agree. If it means force, either through private individuals or through government, then I have to disagree.

When you look at the exceptions we make to free speech: fighting words, kiddy porn, obscenity, defamation, etc. you'll notice that all those things are essentially viewpoint neutral. Restrictions on speech which discriminate by viewpoint present a definitional problem where the law has blurry boundaries. This can chill even expression that falls outside its purview.

It's also a slippery slope. and a potentially very dangerous one.

 

[Vic]

Let people believe and say anything they want, but deny them the ability to act when such actions would be harmful. And especially, to use government to carry out harmful actions.
Too broad, I know, but we can't and shouldn't try to control people's thoughts and words, although rebuke is often appropriate.
Now when intolerance rises up and takes action to oppress and enslave, then yes, there is a moral obligation to be intolerant to such evil.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let people believe and say anything they want, but deny them the ability to act when such actions would be harmful. And especially, to use government to carry out harmful actions.
Too broad, I know, but we can't and shouldn't try to control people's thoughts and words, although rebuke is often appropriate.
Now when intolerance rises up and takes action to oppress and enslave, then yes, there is a moral obligation to be intolerant to such evil.

These are the right words in my opinion, and and their presentation to my mine implies they come from a correct understanding, but while the words can be spoken by a wise person, the wisdom from which they spring can't be transmitted so easily. The paradox resolution here for me lies in the fact that the moral obligation to respond isn't really intolerance but self defense against actual manifested aggressive actions that have transcended the level of threat. One has the freedom of opinion but not the freedom to act on ones opinion in any and every case. One is entitled to feel anything but not to act out on them. There is the small matter of the rights of others and the fact that many take them very seriously.

 

[alcoholbob]

I think there's always going to be intolerance. On the right, people will always claim tradition or faith, and will always have religious texts they can point to for their beliefs, and will stubbornly hold onto them even when confronted with the fact that it's just an excuse to perpetuate intolerance.

On the left, you have the "mother bear" phenomenon that clinical psychologists describe in which liberals who often don't have children themselves, will adopt the downtrodden, minorities, immigrants, people outside of the "mainstream" as their substitute children, and protect them at all costs like a mother bear would her cubs. The problem is this defensive mechanism to "circle the wagons" is so strong it often overrides basic self analysis of outside criticisms of any bad ideas or cultural practices of the people they've decided to infantilize as their adoptive children. This often leads to the appearance of the contradictory "tolerance of intolerance."

 

[Moonbeam]

I think there's always going to be intolerance. On the right, people will always claim tradition or faith, and will always have religious texts they can point to for their beliefs, and will stubbornly hold onto them even when confronted with the fact that it's just an excuse to perpetuate intolerance.

On the left, you have the "mother bear" phenomenon that clinical psychologists describe in which liberals who often don't have children themselves, will adopt the downtrodden, minorities, immigrants, people outside of the "mainstream" as their substitute children, and protect them at all costs like a mother bear would her cubs. The problem is this defensive mechanism to "circle the wagons" is so strong it often overrides basic self analysis of outside criticisms of any bad ideas or cultural practices of the people they've decided to infantilize as their adoptive children. This often leads to the appearance of the contradictory "tolerance of intolerance."

Links to the mother bear phenomenon???????????????

 

[Amused]

Links to the mother bear phenomenon???????????????

I wouldn't be surprised if he posted a picture of his arsehole.

And helping the least of us is an "intolerance?"

Wat?

 

[agent00f]

Links to the mother bear phenomenon???????????????

Just look at your adoption of him.

 

[agent00f]

I think there's always going to be intolerance. On the right, people will always claim tradition or faith, and will always have religious texts they can point to for their beliefs, and will stubbornly hold onto them even when confronted with the fact that it's just an excuse to perpetuate intolerance.

On the left, you have the "mother bear" phenomenon that clinical psychologists describe in which liberals who often don't have children themselves, will adopt the downtrodden, minorities, immigrants, people outside of the "mainstream" as their substitute children, and protect them at all costs like a mother bear would her cubs. The problem is this defensive mechanism to "circle the wagons" is so strong it often overrides basic self analysis of outside criticisms of any bad ideas or cultural practices of the people they've decided to infantilize as their adoptive children. This often leads to the appearance of the contradictory "tolerance of intolerance."

Just a heads up that smarter folks can tell when low edu/iq degenerates pretend to be one.

 

[Vic]

Links to the mother bear phenomenon???????????????

Yeah, that sounds like BS. My own motivations with regards to this are purely selfish. History shows us that intolerance, once allowed to act, never stops escalating. So I have every logical reason to believe that, if I stood by and did nothing, intolerance would eventually come for me and mine.

Those who believe that there is safety in the mob of the majority are fools IMO. We are all of us members of the smallest and least powerful minority, the individual. And the mob does not care about the individual.

 

[Atreus21]

The issue is here is the mistaken elevation of tolerance to the level of a virtue.

We should be tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. This is no great revelation.