Based on the quotation from the article, it seems clear that what was meant originally was that what we should not tolerate is violence, that is, intolerance in the original sense of not tolerating something, to the point of trying to physically remove it from society.

So it is less that we need a narrower definition of the paradox of tolerance, and more that we need a narrower definition of intolerance. Not liking something, or someone, is not intolerance, for instance. Believing that certain behaviors are sinful or immoral, likewise not intolerance. Nor is merely expressing such beliefs, however annoying, upsetting, or offensive they may be to those who hear them.

That is, tolerance is different from acceptance, just as acceptance is different from celebration. And nowadays, when most people invoke the paradox of tolerance, the problem is what they are being intolerant of is not in fact intolerance, but merely non-acceptance of their views.

Conservatives arguing for tolerance of their noxious views only increases my violent intolerance to their existence.

My response to this argument from conservatives is that I never said I was tolerant in the first place.

I’m not tolerant when it comes to them. Not a bit. Between their rampant, multilayered bigotry against black people, foreigners, gays, or trans folk, and their militant devotion to forcing anti-intellectualism down everyone’s throat in the form of religion or pseudoscientific grift, I see no reason to tolerate them at all. Besides, their authoritarian ideology openly exclaims the need for my elimination, so fuck ‘em all as far as I’m concerned!

It should be rendered painful to continue along with such a mindset, and such a “philosophy” (if you’d call it that) should be greatly discouraged at all costs.

At this point, violent intolerance of conservative views is merely self-defense.

This isn’t a question of philosophical differences, it’s a question of “do we allow a bunch of walking hate crimes to legitimize themselves and their discourse in the first place?” The answer is no, fuck every one of them.

We don't even have a culture of tolerance now in the US. There's open animosity and antagonism directed at multiple minorities in conservative media and government.

Oh, you misunderstood - they never planned on being even slightly tolerant of anything or anyone, the plan was to force us to tolerate their regressive bullshit!

I’ve felt for a long time that this whole “liberal tolerance” thing was just a psyop by the right to keep the left and center from fighting back - replacing them both with the most ineffective, wishy-washy form of liberalism a person could find and telling them “you’re just as bad as the people attacking you if you fight back.”

I think we're in violent agreement here :) The hypocrisy means nothing to them.

You’ve hit the nail right on the head.

It’s so cringe-inducing when people go around citing the paradox of tolerance to argue for the criminalization of certain types of speech and other things that Karl Popper most certainly would have been opposed to.

Tolerating other peoples silly opinions does not lead to a Fascist Dictatorship. This is a straw man argument.

Bigotry is intolerance for people who hold different opinions than oneself.

No it’s not, that’s a bullshit argument - and it definitely doesn’t cover being intolerant of an ideology whose entire principle is oppressing or eliminating anyone who doesn’t fit a specific set of traits.

Your perception of ‘those people’ (and what you think they want) isn’t objective fact.

They pretty much come out and say who they are directly.

For my own safety, I’m going to believe them.

Yes because republicans say they want to oppress and eliminate. Gimme a break.

“I support smaller government, equality under law, and individual Liberty” and you hear “I want to oppress and/or kill all people of color and The Gays”

Gay Hispanic man here, I fully agree. If I find out someone is Republican/conservative, I just distance myself. Even if they’re super nice to me, it’s like how can you sit here and show me kindness then vote for people who are calling gay people groomers? Those politicians and pundits have inspired so much hate that drag shows are getting shut down due to threats of violence and at time, groups coming in the area with WEAPONS. How can you give me kindness and then treat immigrants like they’re subhuman? The cognitive dissonance is real. I show them respect and treat them like I would treat anyone, but we’re not going to be hanging out or shooting the shit at all. I just don’t tolerate them in my personal life.

They don’t support smaller government or individual liberty, that’s absolute nonsense and you know it.

What kind of “individual liberty” does one have if they’re being forced to give birth for someone else’s religious reasons, or as an adolescent athlete, be subject to mandatory molestation to “make sure they’re not trans”?

What kind of small government devotes funds to going after drag shows when the country is spiraling into recession from their “non-intervention” healthcare policies during a pandemic - which included literally stealing medical supplies from healthcare providers and then ransoming them back to the market for profit?

You’ve fashioned an entire policy wing around going after anti-racism, whether it be frothing up the fanbase with stoked fears about “CRT” or rabid dismissal of anything “woke” - a term that essentially means “aware of racism and injustice.” You couldn’t be more obvious about your intentions if y’all came out and screamed the N word in public, although many republican argue suspiciously hard to have the “1st amendment right” to do specifically this and not much else.

The only places where the Republicans and their fanbase aren’t trying to marginalize or straight up eliminate someone (whether it be the poor, the gays, trans people, the educated, black people, Hispanics, Jewish people, Asians) is when they’re trying to corruptly funnel even more money into the pockets of the ultra rich.

We hear “I want to oppress and/or kill all the gays/nonwhites/trans people/educators” because that’s what y’all SAY, over and over again. You seem upset that people finally listened.

Can you link one single example of one saying they what you claim?

Of course I could, but the fact is you’re not asking because you actually want a source. You know damn well this is your ideology, you’re proud of it but you know you can’t be public about it. I’ve read what y’all say when you don’t think anyone on the outside is listening. You know your ideology is abhorrent, you know it calls for the elimination of “undesirables” and the implementation of an authoritarian regime. I’m not here for gotcha quotes or to play your stupid games, I’m here to support the side that’s gonna stop you.

So you can’t like I knew you couldn’t because it’s obviously bullshit.

How about we turn this around - can you name one thing Republicans have done in the last 20 years to promote “individual liberty” or “small government”?

You made the claim that republicans want to oppress and kill. With zero evidence. To try and justify your bigotry.

Republican governors were far more likely not to force (covid) mandates but left it up to the individuals to choose for themselves. Individual Liberty and smaller government.

It makes sense that you'd make the personal choice not to tolerate bigoted people, particularly those who advocate for your elimination from society!

That said, I don't think the linked article is talking about this sort of personal (in)tolerance. That is to say, I don't think any of the authors would have much to say on the question of whether you, a private citizen, are obligated to sit by quietly while another private citizen says something you disagree with, especially if they're attacking your identity. You could defriend every political conservative you know without any objection from these philosophers.

Instead, I think the article is arguing that we shouldn't demand that the State prevent intolerant people from ever speaking in public. So, e.g., if Ron DeSantis, wanted to publicly oppose trans rights (which he does), the State should not forcefully silence him or meet him with violence.

To explicitly not denigrate any individual point regarding the mentioned examples of intolerance from the political right, the utter void of acknowledgment of instances from politically liberal sources like Oberlin College v Gibson’s Bakery, the new Stanford campus speech code, UC Berkeley’s student newspaper Daily Californian and their overtly hypocritical stance on free speech, and just about everything that is Columbia University makes for just the most palpable irony when discussing Popper’s views on tolerance.

Once again, conflating "intolerance" with things you don't agree with. The problem is advocating for the state to be intolerant of things you don't agree with, ie using force, ie violence, against them. At no point did this op say the people were violent, so the paradox of tolerance wouldn't apply. However, if OP advocates for the state to be violent towards people who express views he finds abhorrent, he would in fact be advocating for intolerance. Of course, OP opens with saying he IS intolerant, which ironically may invoke the paradox of tolerance, in that perhaps OP's potential actions should not be tolerated lol.

No evidence except their literal public policy and statements.

You mean like Ron DeSantis is doing to drag queens or trans people?

Your unsubstantiated claim of…

Agreed that if OP were advocating for state violence against conservatives, he'd be acting out intolerance. That said, I think OP's personal intolerance would not invoke the paradox at all.

OP chooses not to associate with people OP sees as bad; further, OP tells others about how bad those people are on social media. None of these behaviors qualify as intolerance in the sense meant by these philosophers. (Unless OP is advocating for these others to be imprisoned simply for sharing their views, for example, which I don't think they are.)

From Rawls' perspective, unless the constitution of the state (written to preserve tolerance) is threatened, there's no need for the state to be "intolerant of the intolerant".

So, e.g., Trump's campaign of lies about election fraud and statements about how the constitution should be overthrown might put him on the wrong side of Rawls. By contrast, Ron DeSantis saying that African American history classes are racist is ludicrous but not "intolerant" in the sense of Rawls.

How about the banner at the Texas GOP convention that said "We Are All Domestic Terrorists"?

Bigotry is prejudice against an individual for a personally held group stereotype.

Hatred for a random straight white dude because they're overly represented as conservative for example.

Intolerance of people who hold a different opinion is the first step to setting up a Twitter account.

That was in response to be called domestic terrorists and an example of lefties or dems perception of republicans. Despite no evidence. Kinda reinforcing my point.

[deleted]

> Believing that certain behaviors are sinful or immoral, likewise not intolerance. Nor is merely expressing such beliefs, however annoying, upsetting, or offensive they may be to those who hear them.

This is... not really applicable. Majority of hamartiology books would describe sin as something harmful among other things. As long as a state of being is touted as "harmful", persons of such state of being will be at risk of violence: it does more harm to tolerate it, than not to.

Moreover, if we were to necessitate tolerance of such bigotry by allowing it to be said, then we also have to tolerate the visceral anti-religious sentiment that such bigotry causes to begin with. It not only means, that in fact we logically could scorn bigotry with a bigoted attitude, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence. It may be the hallmark of a "free" society, but it's definitely not the characteristic of a stable one.

Neither does not tolerating silly opinions though...

Eh, both could...

As is often the case in an a point of view to be propagated facts and figures are ignored. Emotion and exaggeration are employed as a cheap and ready fix. Intolerance of opinion contrary to one’s own and weaponising outrage is both dangerous and also hilariously funny.

Good point. I do think the word violence needs to be interpreted potentially more broadly. Someone holding views that they then use to make biased decisions that impact other people materially should count. Example is bias in hiring, promotion, compensation, etc. These material actions I think are part of the concept that should be applied to the word violence. Or we need a broader word like maybe “harm”?

I mean, none of the examples you gave are violent, under any reasonable definition of the term. That's just not what the word means. "Harm" works, as long as you realize that "harm" is a much more subjective word, and that attempts to address "harm" are usually trade offs. For instance, anti-discrimination laws in hiring are deliberate infringements of an employer's right to freedom of association, justified on the grounds of the social harm they ostensibly prevent.

I’d argue they are structurally violent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

I suppose that’s a different term from violence alone, but this concept was defined to handle the expansion in just this kind of discussion.

Also I agree with your point overall I’m trying to add to it not disagree with you.

It's because most people haven't even read anything karl popper wrote and are just citing the meme they saw on Twitter that their favorite influencer posted and thought "man, that helps justify my beliefs".

But I vehemently disagree with the notion of "structural violence". It's an attempt to harness our emotional reactions to violence and to apply our tendency to desire to restrict it to things that absolutely are not violence. It's similar to what progressives have done with the term "racism", which they started applying to a lot things that weren't, in fact, racism, in the hopes of using the emotion associated with the term to win support for their positions. And instead basically succeeded only in discrediting the term.

What you are doing is called "straw-manning" your opponents. This is a time-honored tradition in politics, but what is different now is that it used to be done cynically, as a way to fool others. But you seem to be sincere, meaning you have basically deluded yourself.

It's pointless to be tolerant, it's merely the absence of standards. However, if you view tolerance as a voluntary contract for the purposes of mutual respect, rather than an unconditional duty upon oneself, or an inherent right of others, then the paradox disappears - no freedom for the enemies of freedon

The article of course conveniently bypasses the question how we can tell when an authoritarian movement can no longer be kept in check through open discourse. Given the immense radicalisation of the Republican Party since 2015, given the open attacks on the results of the election and given the attempted coup on January 6th one could arguably make a very strong argument that Liberal society is currently under imminent threat in the United States. Very hard to make the case that US democracy would be save even if Trump were to win in 2024 - pretty disappointing that the article doesn't address this central point.

[removed]

So no freedom of speech for those who try to cancel the speech of others?

Facetious on many, many levels.

First of all, you're demanding they give examples of openly "mask-off" comments as proof when that's simply not how it works.

The far-right knows its a losing strategy to just come out and admit you're a neo-nazi. Your political opinions get immediately dismissed because there's no doubt about where those opinions come from.

That's why people who had been known as white supremacists for years suddenly became "alt-right" in a coordinated rebranding.

But one swastika-filled rally and domestic terrorist act against counter protesters later and suddenly the "alt-right" vanished too. Now they're just "Republicans" or "Trump supporters".

They still used the same talking points as neo-nazis did 20 years ago. They still had the same figureheads. Hell, even their favourite insults like "cuck" were lifted straight from far-right forums where it was used to brand people as "race traitors", especially during their "raids" where they tried to take over other platforms to spread their propaganda.

But they'd finally learned not to give themselves a name. To keep the mask on at all times, so they could always have plausible deniability. So they could claim that "just because they'd done some nazi things, it didn't mean they were a nazi".

When you demand examples of prominent Republicans going mask off, you're either fully aware that they're not that stupid anymore, or you've fallen for the ruse yourself.

Because the person you're arguing with is absolutely right; The mainstream Republican party is riddled with white supremacists and their political platform has been focused pushing far-right goals, starting with the softest targets.

Attacking women's rights (especially when it comes to sex) because Christian fundamentalists will shield them.

Demonising the LGBT+ community as "groomers" and pedophiles, while also applauding violence against actual pedos, in an awkward slight of hand. Attacking the trans community because they're the most vulnerable and have the smallest voice to fight back with.

Openly opposing any ideas that undermine far-right ideals, from accusing everything of being "woke" online, to literally throwing banned books into a fire.

All of these are examples of exactly what they're claiming and we both know you're going to dismiss each and every one on the basis that nobody involved prefixed it with a press conference to announce "Actually, I do think we should genocide minorities".

But you're likely thrilled that this time, you don't have to.

It means the second reactionary strategy online is working: suck the oxygen out of every room with your misinformation, sealioning and constantly shifting goalposts, then claim victory when people don't engage.

The reality is that nobody owes you a long, nuanced post about why you (and the people you're leaping to the defense of) are bad people.

They're fully aware that it won't change your personality one iota because if you could actually be convinced you were wrong, you wouldn't be you in the first place.

But there is one (and only one) valuable thing about engaging.

When a teenager or other vulnerable person wanders into this thread and sees you crowing about an intellectual triumph that never actually happened, they don't mistake you for someone smart or cool.

Because people online have confused contrarianism and abuse with intelligence and charisma since the dawn of the modern skeptic movement.

It's likely how we ended up with a philosophy sub full of apologists and reactionaries in the first place.

Well why are others obligated, towards those who don't reciprocate!

[removed]

I mean, part of it is surely about how you (one) want to be, right? You can be a dick to those who are a dick to you, but then those people will just feel justified in their dickishness, and you will have developed the habit of behaving badly yourself.

Books are being banned in schools in Florida if they even mention anything considered to be against the beliefs of conservatives with the threat of state violence should teachers non comply. How is this not the kind of intolerance that we must not tolerate?

He said they literally say it. That they want to oppress and eliminate(kill). And he said it more than once. Go on and look.

People will be people. Faced with human nature, for what it is, all we can do is respond to it. There are no unalienable rights, only subjective, competing interests. Their rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. I have no obligation to others, if it disadvantages myself

I live in Texas and we had mandatory lock downs and cops pulling people over to make sure they were following it. Where's the individual liberty and small government? Covid was also an international pandemic and not something that should be left to the individual.

Definitely not a perfect response from all reps but far more likely to lean that way than dems. I don’t think the individual should handle the entire pandemic, just on personal choices like if they can go work, wear masks, and vaccines (that are not even proven to provide immunity).

>It should be rendered painful to continue along with such a mindset

I believe there is at least some grey in the area here, if one believes conversion therapy for instance is intolerance. But yeah, we're in agreement, I should have been more clear that we're in agreement that bigotry does not equal or equate to intolerance in the "Paradox of Tolerance."

While double negatives hurt my brain, I'm hoping someone can tell me if my different explanation that kind of ends up with a similar conclusion holds up in any way.

The way I've been thinking about it is that advocating for tolerance was never about advocating for tolerance in every context. To me, it's more of a shorthand to say "tolerance toward those who have immutable traits that they can't control." There would thus be no contradiction to be intolerant toward discriminatory ideologies (in this case, having a discriminatory ideology isn't an immutable trait).

Too often I see people misuse the term "intolerance"; come to think of it, I believe I see it misused more often than used correctly. To tolerate something is to allow it to exist without interference. The VAST majority of people just don't give enough of a shit to actually interfere with other people peaceably living their lives on account of them have differing views on a given issue or leading a lifestyle they find reprehensible; it is an extremely small minority of people anywhere on the sociopolitical spectrum who are actually, truly intolerant of others.

When does

"Who hell would vote for Biden, he is terrible and Trump is amazing"

"No one I know, this is fishy"

"Clearly this election was rigged, no one would vote for Biden, this is our democracy being stolen by Washington Elites!"

"Someone should do something about it"

"We should tell everyone about this, encourage others to protest, railing about this online and on TV"

"We should protest to pressure the politicians to throw out the fake results and put Trump in"

"They disregarded our votes, why would they listen to our protest, I think we need to go in"

riot/coup/treason time

Cross the line?

(Yes my impression of how Trump supporters talk isn't very good - I am not a writer)

The thing is, if you genuinely believe your democracy is usurped. And the authorities are complicit. And votes are meaningless. Isn't protest and possibly even violence the next logical steps?

If a president refused to step down at the end of their term and the authorities backed him - wouldn't overthrowing them be logical to most people.

Once people are convinced their democratic rights are gone and the government is corrupt. The next steps are obvious.

Trumps supporters were convinced the election was rigged. Given that the fake information is believed - the next step is inevitable.

It is only preventable by having everyone educated, mentally stable, informed and open minded so they can work out what press is bullshit.

If you have angry, living in closed bubbles and misinformed people - the outcome of Trump/Fox/whoever's rhetoric is inevitable.

The only way to prevent it without redesigning society and the media is to prevent the spread of intolerant views before they lead to violence.

Or we go with the existing option of let people fuck up and then arrest afterwards. Which in my mind is horribly probably a better option than excessive censorship and thought police.

Given that we know advertising and propaganda are effective (hence why they are one of the world's biggest industries) - should those who spread the lies be held accountable like a person shouting fire in a crowded cinema?

Absolute Tolerance, like most any Absolute, inevitably leads to disaster. Why would anyone ever think tolerance should be absolute? Once this silly notion is addressed, there is no paradox at all: free speech for all who support free speech and none for those that would destroy it.

You're almost certainly familiar with the phrase "When someone tells you who they are, believe them".

But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you haven't heard that phrase and that any kind of difficulty you have with figurative speech isn't intentional...

Do you really want to hang your entire defense on "No but they haven't literally said it"?

We've seen the photos. We've read their comments. . We know all about their memes, manifestos and militias. Who exactly are you hoping to fool with semantics?

The most charitable interpretation of your comments I could make is "someone who can't hear the dog whistle so insists the sound doesn't exist".

“harm” is the right word here. Negative impacts (most) do not qualify as violence. IMO “violence”has been overused and abused in our current discourse and often results in more harm and likely alienates people who may otherwise be amenable to the conversation.

As a lefty i think your examples are fair and worth bringing up. It seems folks assume because you pointed out intolerance on the left you must lean right and therefore you are downvoted?

The right has been radicalized imo beyond the left, but it’s fair to point out that the left has many examples (particularly on college campuses) of unjustifiable harmful intolerance. the idea that just the right has acted in ways that make people feel justified in their intolerance is narrow.

as op points out the intolerance on either side is not supported by The Paradox of Tolerance.

You say those who are already acting like a dick will now feel “justified.” But it seems to me that they already feel justified since as we can see they are already doing it. And tbh who cares if a dick acting like a dick “feels” justified. It should be about wether he IS justified. And using the example from the comic, there is no justification for being a nazi.

> in this case, having a discriminatory ideology isn't an immutable trait.

Except it sort of is. At least, you can't just change your political beliefs, or any belief really, through an act of will. Beliefs may change on their own, of course, but inasmuch as they can't be changed by your choice, they probably qualify as "immutable" in the way you seem to be trying to get at.

And who are the judges?

You mean those who deny liberty to others?

Because the ones that are obsessed with “canceling” the speech of others are the ones that seek the liberty of speaking whatever they want without the responsibility of being held accountable for the words that they utter.

They do so by denying those who oppose them the liberty of calling out their lies and their bullshit (Frankfurt 1986 definition).

It is amazing that so many who claim to be “cancelled” on the political right somehow also have column inches and minutes of airtime to whine about it. It’s almost like it’s bullshit.

Elon Musk is a liberty denier. You criticize him, you are silenced. You point out he uses eco to conceal Eco, you are silenced.

Go ahead and criticize my argument. I’ve got little to do at the moment, but I won’t deny you the liberty to criticize anything I say. But if you do have a criticism, rebut my claims.

I might understand that guys apparent MO, but I’m nowhere near that guy in behaviour and attitude.

[removed]

I’m sorry you’re being downvoted for asking questions. You’re not necessarily wrong, hypothetically, about the cause and effect of the situation. What I think you’re actually discovering is why it is so important to try to react to (what we may deem) “silly” ideas with the exact same line of question that we answer “real” ideas with. I personally think the whole situation has less to do with “tolerance” and more to do with welcoming new ideas while also making sure we still put them through the same line of scientific questioning that we would anything else.

The step of violence has already been taken. Oddly it was taken by self described liberal’s. Strange times we live in.

I believe that there comes a point where a minority can be out-voted, by public opinion, to the point where its possible to direct intolerance on them with little more than a protracted campaign of hate speech.

Put another way, when there aren't enough XXX to defend themselves, public opinion can be swayed with little more than 'freedom of speech'.

At that point, the public become willing to vote for INtolerance in that specific case. It's happened many times historically, and is a reason I can get behind both aspects of European hate-speech laws, and aspects of American sue culture.

The way the paradox of tolerance is smugly intoned as though it’s already the law of the land is genuinely one of the worse uses of philosophy I’ve seen.

Who do you trust to condemn someone as unworthy of the toleration of society? To say the intolerant should not be tolerated is like saying only good people should be allowed to vote: it’s a totally subjective judgment.

Giving the state the power to suppress those it deems intolerant will not protect liberty or democracy.

This entire "paradox" is hateful people trying to use your morality against you to twist your arm. Hateful people know that good people get hung up on matters of moral purity.

This always felt more like a cheap "gotcha" than a paradox for that reason.

Good people of sound mind are equipped to use their judgment to assess human social situations on an individual basis.

Good is not a synonym for Nice. Sometimes societal shunning or even force is necessary to keep hateful people from feeling emboldened to prey on others using a facade of a belief system. Some people see the world through the lens of power not philosophy or discourse.

Indulging tainted ideologies with tolerance exposes vulnerable people to it and gives the impression those ideologies have merit.

Tolerance seemingly translates to pacifism to some people and it is a fine line between being a pacifist and a bystander.

Sometimes just some well phrased vicious mockery from a knowledgable person is enough to make a point and keep in mind more often than not the purpose of that is not to convince the hateful to change but rather to sway the audience. It depends on the scope of the situation in question and a measured response is the answer.

How do we decide what is a tainted ideology? Ultimately as a group. This is where society leans on the enlightened to make these calls and extract nuance and truth from grey situations.

If we don't trust the scholars of humanity to sort this out as a group we will get nowhere fast. While this system isn't perfect I think it is evident that human morality is evolving in a good way over time when we look at the viewpoints that influence younger generations as a whole.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

>, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence.

But not impossible. And so long as the violence is at a maintainable level, then I would argue the benefits of legislating it do not outweigh the cons. The vast majority of people argue about tolerating certain views/lifestyles without shedding blood.

I'm not going to lie and say that the division isn't high, and that most of that division isn't centered around tolerance/culture wars. But I think it's extremely hyperbolic to suggest that the US is not comparatively one of the most tolerant countries in the world or that it doesn't have a culture of tolerance. Anywhere that you have diversity, you're going to have some intolerance. If you don't believe me, ask your average European about their opinions on gypsies or Muslim refugees.

I don't see a paradox, or rather I depart from Popper's paradox in a way which resolves it.

if tolerance = tolerance

and intolerance = ~tolerance

than ~(~intolerance) = tolerance

Thus the only form of intolerance which is tolerable in a just society is the intolerance of intolerance and this is not logically inconsistent or irrational using the symbolic logic above.

This requires more complex analysis and terms since we need to better define what tolerance is with respect to the nuance and complexity of a society and civilization rather than mere logic.

I tend to perceive in terms of impositionality and the need for justification being non-arbitrary. I would thus propose that any significant and arbitrary imposition is a thing which society should restrict. yet Human beings tolerate myriad forms of imposition. We tend to tolerate arbitrary and more extreme forms of imposition less frequently. If we break these forms down and understand the basis for tolerance of them, we might better come to understand what forms of tolerance and intolerance are acceptable. Examples of imposition in this context include the production of sound, or existing within the visual range of a person, consuming finite resources, being an emotional being (imposing one's emotional needs on others), etc.... Most people would be entirely accepting of another person producing sound, but would be intolerant of it in a movie theater or during the middle of a funeral or wedding ceremony. similarly if a young child or a person with a significant psychological condition was verbally disruptive we would tend to tolerate such sonic impositions more readily. Who is doing it, where it is done, what they are doing, why they are doing it, etc... all play into our tolerance of many things.

So, intolerance of intolerance seems to be a rather narrow and also particularly variable set of ideas. the generally agreed to restrictions to the arbitrary imposition of a person or group on the basis of race, sex, gender, or nationality is based in this understanding of intolerance of intolerance. I think intolerance is arbitrary and thus subject to justified intolerance if it is based in any ascribed status (since a person cannot choose or change this status within reason). accountability thus also plays a significant role. if one cannot be accountable, within reason, the intolerance of them is unjustified and thus should not be tolerated. For example if a person is Russian, this alone is not a sufficient reason to hold them accountable for the actions of the administration which presides over them. Most people would agree that a citizen of a country is not accountable for the actions for their country's policies in the same way that the representatives of their government are. Similarly a black person or a white person is not accountable for the actions of other white or black people, etc.... Each person is accountable for themselves, and we ought to tolerate or not tolerate them based on the degree of arbitrariness that their imposition, their behavior or assertion, has on others.

You saying that directly contradicts my interpretation of what free speech is, so I’m going to imprison you for saying it. Hopefully next time people think twice about openly advocating for what you just did.

Free speech does not include speech against what I consider free speech.

Absolutely no, there's no justification for initiating violence on a person, let alone a group of people who number in the millions, simply because they hold certain views. You can't justify that violence by saying "Well maybe if they say certain things people will get hurt" either. Do I really need to explain how horrible this stance is?

Initiating violence is morally acceptable if and only if you're protecting yourself, your property, or other people from immediate and tangible danger, not hypothetical future danger that might or might not occur.

[removed]

It’s not straw-manning - the vast majority of modern conservatives behave and believe exactly as I described, or worse. It’s an entire political movement based around antisocial and hateful tendencies, and I’m describing it exactly how it is. How is that straw-manning?

whether a certain kind of people should be allowed to live shouldn't ever be a question and we shouldn't tolerate people who act like it is

violently overthrowing climate change deniers is self defense on a global scale.

[removed]

So not only should we execute people who are hateful, we should throw in the un/mis-informed as well? You know I'd argue that climate change activists who protest nuclear energy against all logic and reasoning contribute a great amount to rising CO2 levels, should we throw them in as well? Or is it only the people YOU think are the enemies?

Not the same thing, No True Scotsman, logical fallacy.

If you are going to make a counterargument, make a logical, rational one.

The Popper Paradox is semantic, and not truly a problem of logic.

No structure should include it's own annihilation: this is why it is illegal to try to overthrow a government, for example. Taking the term 'free speech' as an absolute has already been thrown out in countless ways, because it cannot be allowed to exist as an absolute. Calling for the murder of others is illegal, despite 'free speech'. So are making threats of bodily harm. And countless other forms of criminal speech.

Such limits are imposed because not all humans can be trusted to be responsible, reasonable, rational, or have good intentions. It is the same reason anarchy cannot ever be allowed: it always ends in violence and collapse (and warlords!).

Truly free speech could only be permitted if humanity was incapable of violent crime and destruction for its own sake. And that is not going to happen. 'Free speech' always means free speech with conditions. Always.

Cool rant bud but I’m replying to someone who didn’t say anything you said and just made the nebulous argument of no free speech “for those who would destroy it” which is just a convoluted way of saying “free speech but not for the bad ideas”.

You gave a bunch of extremely narrow and well defined examples of things not covered under most understandings of free speech, which I agree with as a non-free speech absolutist.

But I noticed you didn’t include advocating for anti-free speech ideas. Which as someone who believes in free speech I want to defend the right to express even if I think they’re stupid, and why I have such a visceral reaction every time I read an “ok I like free speech but just let me censor that one it’s the bad one I promise it’s ok just give me the power…”

people who actively do not want the climate change crisis to be dealt with, and who are running the machine that makes it happen. oil execs, propagandists like prager u, lobbyists.. your uncle gary can be educated, darren woods and matt walsh cannot

when was that

I agree, the idea that being a supporter of a free society forces you to accept some logical-sounding but foreign-to-reality inferences is dumb.

> tolerance is different from acceptance.

That’s the best way to put it.

It’s like the “☪️☮️🕉✡️🛐☯️✝️” sign. It doesn’t point to the magical unification of all religious ideologies pictured, into a single one. They just try not kill one another.

Exactly. That's why the idea of "thoughtcrime" from 1984 was so horrific, because you can't fully control what you think even when you have a very strong incentive from a repressive state to do so.

Denying anyone their individual rights because of their political or other beliefs should be a horrifying idea too. Only actions likely to lead to harm should lead to restrictions to your rights. Like public calls to or threats of violence

I disagree somewhat.

The problem with the article is its theoretical level.

>The freedom of the intolerant should only be limited if the people holding totalitarian beliefs can no longer be “kept in check”, in the words of Popper, or is a danger to the public order, in the words of Rawls.

This implies a world where we can objectively agree on a clear line, and if someone stepped over it, we can all agree that this specific person can now no longer be kept in check and can now be suppressed. But the world is not like this. Everyone assesses from their own point of view, and may come to different conclusions. Fascist abuse of freedom relies on this: it pushes the boundaries, and when the first ones cry foul, they get support from those who do not agree with that assessment, and create division. And because the minds of people and the rules of the society are changed with enough support, the fascists can gather enough support by operating on the vicinity of the line to push the line further and further.

You say that we should only be intolerant of violence, not merely non-acceptance of our views, but if we wait until the fascists get to violence, it is already too late. They gather support by being intolerant, and if we don't suppress that, they are allowed to gather enough support that we will be unable to stop the violence when it starts.

I recognize the problem that if there is no universal rule, it is impossible to objectively say when are we not actually preventing the rise of fascism but simply suppressing non-acceptance of our views. This is a real problem. But I argue there can be no universal rule, because such a rule needs to be careful enough to not go too far (like you advocated), but a rule that is that careful is a rule that will not stop fascists.

It does attempt to address it, although I contend it fails in that attempt.

>But what constitutes “based on evidence and ways of reasoning acceptable to all”? According to Rawls we can only answer this question truthfully behind the veil of ignorance2. Because only under the veil the answer would represent an agreement to limit liberty only by reference to a common knowledge and understanding of the world.

The problem is that there is no common knowledge and understanding of the world. We all have our own points of view, and we all make those assessments subjectively.

Which step are you referring to?

Cringe-inducing? More like terrifying, how the people you thought were liberal and principled would put the Nazis to shame with their rhetoric. Look at some other comments in this very post, they want to criminalize conservative opinions, deny their vote or outright bomb them all, and have no fear saying it out in the open.

If so, then affirmative action is violence.

Read up on the Rwandan genocide to understand what "open animosity" means, please.

The last time we trusted the enlightened vanguard of society to make decisions for us it resulted in mass famines and the death of millions of innocent people.

The criticism is simple: 1. Yes, those that claim to be "cancelled" are many, doesn't mean their criticisms aren't real. They're being censored, but the censorship isn't infinitely powerful. Numbers can be high but smaller than other numbers. 2. So what if Elon Musk does it too? That's not really relevant. 3. What does the "responsiblity of being held accountable" entail? Anonymous speech exists, and I don't see what reasonable principle would disallow it. 4. You've failed to actually say whether or not you actually want to prevent others from speaking freely or not. If yes, the principle applies and you should be prevented from speaking freely. If not, then it doesn't.

It always amuses me how much you people resemble what you claim to despise. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

Where were we talking about killing people? You've read something into my comment that was not there.

[deleted]

JS Mill makes a similar argument in On Liberty. You're free to do something and I'm free to say you're a shithead for doing it (not exactly the terms he used).

It’s been going on since the summer of 2020. Most recently this past weekend in Atlanta silly goose

Antifa. It’s been going on for a while, most recently three days ago when their rioted in Atlanta and built a little compound in the woods

Paradox should be the word we're focusing on, not the Paradox of Tolerance, but the Paradox of a liberal democracy in general. It's a middle ground between mob rule and autocracy. People with too much power will become corrupt and the masses are short-sighted. It's a middling between two potentially horrible ideologies. We all fall one way or the other. The idea is that we counteract one another. But some sense of respect, civility, and ultimately humility is required.

Thanks for the feedback, and I definitely see your point. I was about to bring up how I meant characteristics that one isn't born with, but then that wouldn't address religious bigotry. I do remember how I originally saw the phrase as "intolerant to hateful ideologies toward traits that people don't have ANY control over," which may work better, but still may be ambiguous when we'd get to the topic of how much growing up and being nurtured in an echo chamber could impact our nature.

Expressing the disdain for the perceived sinful/immoral whatever is intolerance, what are you talking about?

Expressing it is literally the line where it goes from being in your head to being intolerance.

But I’m not always against people expressing it. As it is a good tool to identify the intolerant individuals in society, and publicly shame/mock them. Which is essential for any society hoping to progress.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

No, intolerance is a refusal to tolerate something. It is not the same as disapproving of something. For instance, my vegetarian boyfriend disapproves of people eating meat, but he tolerates people who do, including me. If he refused to keep anyone in his life who ate meat, that would make him personally intolerant of meat-eaters. If he argued in favor of commiting violence against meat-eaters to try to rid the world of such vermin, that would make him politically intolerant of meat-eaters. It is that last sort of intolerance that Popper claims we shouldn't tolerate, and even then he adds a bunch of caveats limiting when it would be acceptable to suppress such speech.

See the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

>be subject to mandatory molestation to “make sure they’re not trans”?

Ok dude. I was with you up until that point. Nobody was ever suggesting what you are accusing them of. When that was being discussed, all that would have happened or been needed was to check their physical that they had to turn in from the doctor, which would have already had their sex on it. There was not going to be lockerroom examinations.

“Nobody was ever suggesting”

Ok dude, yes. They explicitly were. Ohio tried to pass it, several other states were too. They said it was about “fairness in sports” and the rule would be that if your kid wanted to play sports, your kid would have to be “digitally examined” (as in finger not computer) by a “doctor” selected by the coaches.

This is where the republicans are at today.

Nothing I said was hyperbole.

When’s the last time “us people” tried to make it illegal to discuss how black people are treated differently, all while simultaneously arguing about “first amendment rights” to say the N word?

When’s the last time anyone on the left made such a huge deal about targeting trans people? The republicans have made dozens of bills targeting trans kids and adults, even trying to rope drag queens in just to get an extra stab at queer people. You can’t even tell people you’re gay in Florida without risking your job, especially if you’re a teacher. What kind of “liberty” is that?

When’s the last time the left tried to overthrow the government and install an authoritarian fascist leader who immediately planned to implement martial law? how many politicians have they tried to kidnap? I know you’ll probably make some racist comment about BLM - no, that absolutely isn’t the same thing and you know it.

The left isn’t making their entire game “fuck these people, those people, and those other people.” That’s the republicans/right wingers/conservatives. Their only platform is hate and grift. You literally can’t name a policy they have that would help America, because they haven’t got one - they’re a bunch of fascists supported by foreign interests, and if you support them then you’re just as bad as they are.

My brother in Christ, there was no such thing.

Here is the bill from Ohio

>(C) If a participant's sex is disputed, the participant shall establish the participant's sex by presenting a signed physician's statement indicating the participant's sex based upon only the following: >(1) The participant's internal and external reproductive anatomy; > (2) The participant's normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone; >(3) An analysis of the participant's genetic makeup.

In other words. The doctor's physical that they had to do to play in school sports in the first place would have confirmed their physical sex.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us%2Fsolarapi%2Fv1%2Fgeneral_assembly_134%2Fbills%2Fhb151%2FPH%2F02%2Fhb151_02_PH%3Fformat%3Dpdf&data=05%7C01%7CDarcie.Loreno%40fox8.com%7C6f4ca795a5394e33303f08da4a61672c%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637904079443584385%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3LZyUmOqpHSA1qbfqS4ZS33H%2Fnz%2Bs33Wgd0smlcngYo%3D&reserved=0

Yeah that’s always the argument they make at us right before, and then right after they commit violence at us.

The last time we had a bunch of right wing extremists numbering in the millions and pledging violence against entire demographics of people, it quickly became a problem for the rest of the world.

Not only is it ok, it is sometimes NECESSARY to violently resist if one wants to keep their lives and protect themselves.

…so they’d have to be molested by a “doctor.”

It’s okay if this person finger rapes your 11 year old as long as they’re an MD?

No...

1. physical sex is already in these kids medical records. No further examination needed.

2. pelvic examinations are already a normal part of physical examinations for children because doctors make sure kids are developing regularly.

Nowhere does it mention a "digital examination" at all.

Then you weren’t following the hearings…

Either way, the fact that you’re defending this trash AT ALL means you mostly believe in it.

I would never let some random school doctor - who would be selected for this “exam” - to give my kid a physical - especially after what we know about the sorts of people who rush to take those positions.

Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals? Ah yea I’m sure they’re just in it for the medical legitimacy of it all, especially seeing as the right wingers who made this policy can’t seem to keep their fingers or dicks out of kids at church or scouts.

Oh so you're worried about the US becoming like Nazi Germany? And we should preempt that by gathering all the wrong thinkers, and then what do we do with them? Should we forcefully re-educate them? Or should we consider a more final solution?

If you honestly think that internet trolls and a few thousand neo-nazos (If that) is all it takes for a prosperous, first world nation to dissolve to a fascist nation that mass executes its own citizens than you need professional help.

The only people telling me this isn’t a worry are the same people actively forming militias and joining up behind a despotic potential leader.

They’re making endless rules trying to criminalize LGBT people, attempting to force certain demographics to wear or possess special identification… oh yeah, and a few years ago were actively forcing immigrant families into concentration camps, forcibly sterilizing several of them, and stealing their children just to be cruel.

They already execute thousands of citizens a year in the streets - charged with no crime most of the time, and there’s usually a racial element too. The people who do the killing are directly descended from the people who enforced slavery.

You’re not gonna be able to convince anyone “don’t believe your lying eyes”, we know what we’re seeing, we know what we are hearing. Yes, there’s a fucking danger brewing here. It needs stopped.

No. I don't give a damn if a trans kid plays in school sports because school sports are an extremely trivial matter to worry about. I just think that with all of the other horrible things you can peg Republicans for that's actually true, falsely accusing them of hiring anti-trans doctors to molest children is unnecessary.

>would never let some random school doctor -

It doesn’t say a school doctor. It would be your child's pediatrition. It would be your choice which doctor.

>Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals?

Oh.... I don't know... a pediatrition? You know... the people who went to medical school and specialized in child development. Which includes sexual development.

Dude. It's very clear because of some other very reasonable concerns that you've become accustomed to assuming the worst and never questioning things when it comes to Republicans. But I am literally giving you the bill. The bill that was passed from the place that you referenced. And does not mention forced digital examinations, coach picked doctors, or locker room examinations. All it requires is a physicians statement, which you can readily get from your kids' pediatrition.

It appears that, after massive outcry, the portion I was talking about was dropped.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/06/ohio-republican-senate-removes-genital-check-requirement-from-transgender-athlete-bill/69703296007/

Your party still proposed it, though.

>Your party still proposed it, though.

Not my party, bud. And the fact that I have to say that again pretty much sums up the issue.

If they’re not yours, why defend them? This isn’t just some case of misunderstanding or disagreement on policy, like whether we should tax cigarettes or have more carpool lanes.

This is a mainstream political party operating under the “conservatism” umbrella openly calling to have children molested as they make repeated, organized efforts to marginalize minorities and suppress dissent while platforming known white supremacists and far-right leaders.

>If they’re not yours, why defend them?

Because the truth matters. I do not like Republicans, but I criticize them on what they're actually doing.

tldr: you want the good stuff read 4. you want to actually get the good stuff read all this.

1: Just because one wants to speak does not require others hear them. If many people agree they don’t want to hear you, that’s not censorship. It’s society telling an antisocial person in a gentle way their opinions are unacceptable.

However, the person claiming they are being denied an audience then ups the stakes. Instead of being ignored on their soapbox, they grab the megaphones of newspapers, radio, TV.

It’s curious to consider that the promotion of the antisocial, either by algorithms that explicitly promote controversy or by the gatekeepers to the printing press and the broadcast studio, isn’t considered censorship of those who instead hold the seemingly bonkers view that treating people with respect does not mean treating their ideas that advocate inflicting pain on others and self respectfully, which necessitates exclusion of the person holding those antisocial views unless they alter their views to something socially acceptable.

I will point out there latter concept isn’t just fundamental to how human communities have worked for millennia. It’s identifiable as a means other species with high sociality operate. Bonobo society excludes individuals that act antisocially with return only permitted if they actually behave.

This does concede, though, that there’s an obvious hack to the concept of shaping up or shipping out.

Some hold antisocial views and merely act like they don’t in public. “Private vice and public virtue” is a well known concept. In public, they say all the right things for their social circle, but privately they don’t follow their own rules.

The “homophobic legislator who has a publicly accessible history proving his actual preference for the intimate companionship of those of the same gender” can be found in Congress as well as Hungary’s fanatically anti-queer ruling party. It takes no imagination to think of clerics who talk about protecting children at the public ceremony then violate children in their private offices, whether said cleric is named Priest, Pastor, Rabbi, Imam, Sri.

This also explains a phenomenon evident in modern polling. There is complaint by conservatives that polling is useless because polls don’t sync with results of the vote.

A person I know who has remarkable demonstrable accuracy in predicting poll results around the world (they called 49/50 states in the 2020 election and bang on 77 Labor seats with 52% 2PP in the 2022 Australian election) calls this “The Shy Tory Effect.”

Modern viewpoints that have become linked with conservative political parties are understood to be antisocial. Publicly, some who espouse antisocial beliefs either claim to be apolitical or they say they support progressive ideas. In the privacy of the polling place, though, where none know one’s true intention, they vote for the Tory that supports their actual beliefs.

2: I didn’t say he does it too. I said he actually does what others allege nobodies like this random chick do and I counter by saying I will entertain an actual rebuttal.

Today I’m bored though so ¯_(ツ)_/¯

3: Responsibility of being held accountable is simple.

If one chooses to advocate ideas that inflict pain on others and self, one should be excluded unless those antisocial ideas are renounced.

Millions of words published, printed, and transcribed going back millennia already exist on variants of this principal one finds central to philosophy and religion.

Wil Wheaton summarized this succinctly: “Don’t be a dick.”

The great philosophizers Ted “Theodore” Logan and Bill S. Preston, Esq. mused, “Be excellent to each other.”

Anons that advocate antisocial views are tolerable as long as the options to ignore the anon or to unmask the anon are reasonably available whenif necessary.

Visiting 4chan is a choice an individual can make. 4chan is the incubator of memes for this exact reason: anonymity allows those who come up with an idea to share it at the cost of instantly and irrevocably losing control over the idea.

A billionaire using shell companies and think tanks to advocate antisocial views on every platform while staying obfuscated via the legal fictions in between, that’s dangerous especially in a place that foolishly says money is speech.

(It is worth noting that Stevens’ 90 page dissent on Citizens United was prescient in accurately predicting the horrific fallout from that decision, including the current popular opinion SCOTUS is illegitimate. Law students may see it as footnote but philosophers should see it as a master class on logic.)

4: I don’t mind discussing things with anyone that holds any view other than a view that is diametrically opposed to my existence if they actually want to talk.

An antiziganist holds a foundational opinion that Roma should not exist. They believe in extermination of Roma. This person’s entire being is dedicated to that proposition. What does it profit Roma to engage this person?

That’s a very narrow window, though. Most people that hold antisocial views are not absolutists or zealots.

They can be reasoned with though the caveat that this is dancing a waltz backwards and in heels across a live minefield must be mentioned.

The misogynist self-indoctrinated those antisocial views on women and on who they are told is their political enemy, “the Left,” who they are told wants to inflict pain on them so they must inflict pain on them.

You would think that would preclude a person who calls herself a leftist from speaking to that person. That’s logical, right? Why would a leftist chick talk to someone who hates lefties and women and lefty women?

Lol nope. Try again.

I don’t talk to them. They talk to me.

I just act with genuine sincerity from the position of choosing to not inflict harm on others and self in all spheres of life.

I don’t attack people. Attacking people looks easy but is hard.

I consider myself violently nonviolent, though, because I am at war against ideas that advocate inflicting pain on others.

Attacking ideas looks hard but is obscenely easy.

All one needs to do is demonstrate a counterexample that challenges the premises underpinning the hateful view.

Sometimes one reflects, points to the mirror, and realizes the counterexample just needs to be.. you.

Writers call this concept, “show, don’t tell.”

I engage in deradicalization for fun. I know it’s a weird hobby, but my life is an exercise in absurdity to begin with, so I roll with it.

The most important lesson anyone going into derad needs to know is that no one can force change into another person’s mind if they acknowledge agency.

That is a contradictory concept and it’s toxic.

It also explains that certain style by those who spread hate online: they pay lip service to agency but did not believe others have it.

The alt-right YouTuber starts by saying, “I’m just sharing my opinion..” but leaves unsaid: …and I expect you to latch onto it, sheeple.

Public virtue, private vice. Shy Tory effect. Hey look, callbacks.

It’s almost like these are the same thing wearing different masks.

Turns out they are. They are all bullshit per the Frankfurt definition.

All one needs to do to counter is approach with sincerity and genuine openness and invest the time. (And actively avoid amygdala hijack. And have discipline that makes a drill instructor look like a slovenly civvie. But that’s in the advanced courses, which are conveniently available for the low low price of zero dollars for a limited time only, offer expires upon your expiration.)

If it takes me 48 hours of vulnerable, open conversations to help someone realize that, “wait, those ideas i supported, they are not what i actually believe,” and chose to give them up, beats any paycheque in my eyes.

…even if it makes it a challenge to feed the bills and pay the cat. Hours work for me but the pay is nonexistent.

eh, both sides are as nuts and bad as each other frankly, horseshoe theory looks better everyday.

if either side had their way authoritarianism would flourish (both sides require it to achieve their goals, one side wants to force people into the future and the other the past. they should just leave people alone)

not to mention the fact both sides have identical economics (ignoring commies and LiBeRtArIaNs)

you know you sound just like them? 'lefties arguing for tolerance of their warped views only increases my intolerance for their existence'

unless you oppose the status quo (ie unless you think the Dems are rightwing, which they inmdeed are. Dressing up status quo market capitalism in LGBTI minority drag is not left).

If you are equating people minding their own business trying to pee with LibsofTiktok, you're so barking up wrong tree right now. Dems are absolutely right wing. I'm from another country, it's laughable when they claim that Joe Biden - a corporate Democrat to the bone - is a socialist.

do you mean the people protesting a guy who was killed by the cops? if they started the violence then how did the guy die??

If we support tolerance, shouldn’t we condemn intolerance and seek to suppress it?

You might wanna update yourself on what they’re actually doing.

Antifa, BLM, Jan 6. They all are fighting for the same thing. If you support one you support them all. Unless you haven’t unpacked our current condition intellectually enough yet to recognize that?

antifa and blm are ideas, not a group of people. jan 6 was instigated by people, specifically people who wanted to kill the vice president and overthrow the government. trump was on twitter telling people to go there

So what's your solution?

Lol they are all reaction to the exact same thing. In general Antifa is a little different because the individuals in that movement tend to be from a privileged background so they don’t have as much in common as Jan 6/MAGA and BLM do.

The whole thing assumes tolerance is a good value. I would argue that tolerance is not a good value to begin with, so there's only an alleged paradox because the author can't decide in himself whether tolerance is a good value or not.

Depending on what the behavior is, believing it's evil or "sinful" can absolutely be intolerance. Murdering someone in cold blood? Not intolerance. Spreading the idea that gay sex is evil? Definitely intolerance.

The paradox is fine as is. It makes sense and is backed up by history.

they are reactions to fascism, yeah. if you're pro fascism then you'd definitely hate those guys, who happen to be the majority of the people who live in the United States by a pretty massive margin

Which one Antifa, BLM or MAGA? I don’t think you can provide a case of any of them. They are all decentralized populist movements. The opposite of a centralized authoritarian movement. I’m open to hear your argument but I don’t see anything resembling a fascist movement outside of the governments response to Covid and we were in the middle of a global crisis so that’s forgivable. Although they have been clinging to their authoritarian power far longer than they should but nonetheless.

"Though the interpretation of Popper in the discourse thus misses the point, the original problem remains. When are ideas dangerous and intolerant enough to be censored, and when should they be fought with words?"

The original problem does not remain. The intolerance paradox is succinct and clear. There is no confusion. Any confusion the author has, is irrational.

[removed]

They have freedom of speech. As do we all. They don't forfeit their freedoms once they do that. That behavior is simply not covered under the umbrella of "free speech." Just like shouting fire in a crowded theater is not covered. Or in England, fighting words are not covered.

You are being defensive and biased, by the way. When you are looking at a philosophical question (or any question really), you want to step back from your emotions. Think rationally about the topic. Acknowledge your emotions, because they have indications as well, but don't let yourself be ruled by them. Sometimes emotions can cause to make mistakes. Like the saying about fighting when you're angry. The angry man always loses in a fight. Because his opponent can easily predict his moves, and he also completely loses control. So his swings become wild and erratic. Rather than controlled and strong and striking true and on target.

What is eco??

There's a healthy amount of denial behind your logic

They're not asking a question. People can make statements and implications in the form of a question. Don't play dumb.

That sentence doesn't quite make sense

I don't think "it's pointless to be tolerant" though.

But I think I understand what you're getting at. Tolerance is a sort of oxymoron in and of itself.

If you're truly "tolerant", you don't really see it as tolerating.

But tolerance is still important. Because, we're not perfect. Even those of us who are truly tolerant. We still need to actively engage tolerance, or patience, when we encounter new things, or difficult things

Yeah this article is complete garbage.

I think you're being way too generous. Intolerance is very common. It's not all rodney king or massacres or horrendous brutality. It is often idle and minor abuses, that are just quiet enough to be socially acceptable. They do just enough to be able to get away with it. Those that do more than that, obviously don't get away with it.

For example, when an angry poor person says "welcome to reality" to a small child who gets mistreated and tries to defend themselves. That is a form of intolerance. And it's a common saying and widely used.

I guess it's not directly tied to any demographic. But it is generally hateful behavior. Maybe it's more just an attitude of intolerance, and melodrama. By your definition, tolerance is allowing something to exist without interference. So in this example, they would be interfering with someone's right to defend themselves, or to experience happiness.

I guess you probably didn't make this comment with the hopes of being disproven or argued with. And I'm sorry for doing that. But I do honestly think you might be mistaken.

should those who spread the lies be held accountable like a person shouting fire in a crowded cinema?

For the love of God, yes

Edit: I hate that they didn't respond to you. You clearly gave THE answer that corrects their mistake. Yet they straight up refuse to acknowledge it.

I think it's actually about emotion, rather than logic.

Leftists often use logic to argue with regressives, because leftists accidentally treat them as if they're being rational.

But I think in reality, the regressives are operating based off of emotion. Then they use logic to hide that. So really, he's just angry about something. He's probably mad about general societal issues, like small micro aggressions that he receives regularly.

Because there's just no way he actually got to that conclusion through logic. And he refused to acknowledge your sound argument. That shows that he is blocked by something. Im guessing it's some kind of emotional damage.

Maybe he sees your comment as some kind of insult. He feels "stupid" when he's corrected. So some kind of shame emotion. Or maybe he just gets rage whenever he encounters any political topic. Similar to road rage. He can't communicate, or he feels out of control. So he feels bottled, and starts spluttering, and becomes angry and rageful. Maybe the rage is another cover up for his feeling of shame and inadequacy.

So I think leftists need to reach out and help these people understand how to deal with conflicts. In order to resolve conflicts, you have to just step back and find a neutral center in your mind, where you can feel calm and uneffected.

It's only funny if you pretend you don't care about others

Definitely not flying from Oakland to SFO and complaining that publicly available information is being used to follow the movements of the private jet pumping out a looot of pollution.

Not the best way to put it, true.

The point was that the article seemed to say that IF you are a supporter of a free society, you MUST accept these claims. Which is nonsense, because everything depends on what is meant by those things. And especially nonsense, if the claims are very abstract philosophical constructs, such as duties or rights, as the previous commenter mentioned.