Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Janube t1_iwd63hk wrote

Reply to comment by ThomasJP1983 in Why liberals cannot escape intolerance by ThomasJP1983

This makes a classic mistake (so classic, there's a phrase for the conundrum: the Tolerance Paradox) of presuming that tolerance itself is the end that is sought.

Tolerance is merely a means and is not a valuable thing on its own in a vacuum. We refuse to tolerate many things in society. That's why prisons exist. It's why any disincentivization structure exists.

Liberals (well, the ones who've given it any thought) aren't speaking of tolerance as though it's a value unto itself; they speak of it as the solution to a problem whereby someone who does no harm to others is being targeted and oppressed.

It's a clever rhetorical trick by opponents to obfuscate actual issues by turning the conversation away from their unjustifiable prejudice of innocent people to the liberals' justifiable prejudice of prejudiced people, an argument that obviously falls apart when examined with any depth at all. If we had to tolerate all evil in order to tolerate innocence, then society would literally either crumble or become ruthlessly libertarian/anarchic.

The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.

33

VitriolicViolet t1_iwdo0kx wrote

>The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.

ding ding ding.

7

iiioiia t1_iwh1mpn wrote

> Liberals (well, the ones who've given it any thought) aren't speaking of tolerance as though it's a value unto itself; they speak of it as the solution to a problem whereby someone who does no harm to others is being targeted and oppressed. > > > > It's a clever rhetorical trick by opponents to obfuscate actual issues by turning the conversation away from their unjustifiable prejudice of innocent people to the liberals' justifiable prejudice of prejudiced people, an argument that obviously falls apart when examined with any depth at all.

It seems to me there's a bit of a rhetorical trick going on here as well, the notion that ~all "liberal" ideas are correct (and opposing ideas are incorrect), and all liberal people are flawless or at least superior thinkers. Of course, this wasn't explicitly asserted, and that's the power/trickiness of it.

0

Janube t1_iwhjywa wrote

Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha

2

iiioiia t1_iwhpk6m wrote

Even funnier is your inability to counter ideas you disagree with. You could prove my bold assertion incorrect in your reply, let's wait and see what happens.

From the sidebar: > > Argue your Position > > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. > > Be Respectful > > Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Is "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha" compliant with those guidelines?

Is "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha" the maximum of what you are capable of?

−2

Janube t1_iwii2yx wrote

Mate, you didn't argue your position; you stated a claim and then folded your arms. That's why I laughed. Not even worth the time. I'll keep an eye here out of an abundance of generosity, but I'm blocking you if your response is anything except a cogent and complete argument.

1

iiioiia t1_iwiiqa4 wrote

> Mate, you didn't argue your position; you stated a claim and then folded your arms.

I guess we have that in common....two differences between us though:

  • I am willing to defend my claim, whereas we've seen what your defense of yours consists of: "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha".

  • you seem unable to answer simple questions

EDIT: followed up by blocking me, the sign of a true intellectual powerhouse.

0

ThomasJP1983 OP t1_iwd9xwl wrote

As I say in the article, Popper restricted the tolerance paradox to very authoritarian movements. Moreover, he recognized that broad interpretations of the paradox threatened liberal democracy. In my opinion, liberal interpretations are now too broad.

−9

Janube t1_iwdc2iq wrote

"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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. 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 considered "intolerance of intolerance" as a response to be state-issued suppression and that the preferable alternative was the court of public opinion (and rational argumentation). IMO, it's clear here he's not just talking about strict authoritarianism. Especially given the phrase "any movement preaching intolerance..."

Call me when SJWs are stringing up conservatives to murder them and then we'll talk.

8

DrakBalek t1_iwdam6n wrote

>liberal interpretations are now too broad

Do you have examples?

5

Fishermans_Worf t1_iweo286 wrote

>As I say in the article, Popper restricted the tolerance paradox to very authoritarian movements.

And? There's extremely authoritarian and pervasive elements of our culture—like conservative Christianity. The blog post even opens with a defence of a Christian who want to impose their religion on others.

My faith demands abortion when it is appropriate. How can defending against a substantive attack against the free practice of my faith be intolerance without first applying that measure to initial attack?

A person can express anything they want—it doesn't mean people are going to like them. Belonging to organizations is a privilege reserved for those who play well with others.

2

VitriolicViolet t1_iwdp5j1 wrote

ok so how about conservatives and their interpretations?

you are on a philosophy sub you literally do not get to just ''one side'' this thing.

next both the paradox and ignoring it threaten society, so what is your point here? we have hard evidence of what happens when all speech is free (Nazi Germany) and what happens when no speech is free (North Korea).

conservatives sure love hierarchies and group think until the positions on the totem pole change.

frankly both conservatives and liberals are one and the same (i mean Liberalism is a conservative ideology ffs) and both seem more then happy to crush any and all peoples rights if it means they 'win'.

keep simping for the system that crushes us all (the enemy are the wealthy).

0