i see the paradox of tolerance not as a defense of tolerance, but as its demolition. it shows that tolerance is not a coherent principle: taken absolutely, it destroys itself; limited, it depends on some higher principle that is not tolerance.

Absolutes are absolute bullshit.

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

Legalizing tolerance is a method co-opt a liberal regime into fascism.

Take anti-semitism laws in germany and protesting the Israeli genocide of palestinians for example.

Or the UK...

A counter example, Ireland.

There's a straightforward way to resolve the paradox of tolerance, IMO. Treat tolerance as a social contract. An intolerant person has explicitly rejected the contract.

...all of them

Karl Popper is also the guy who wrote about falsifiability

Big brain right there.

Edit: fixed the link.

I see so many people fall into the trap of spouting unfalsifiable statements when talking about AI.

Absolutely.

What's this from?

Indubitably

https://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/kill-six-billion-demons-chapter-1/

Kill 6 billion demons. It has some of the most emotionally honest, colorful, and complex characters that I’ve read in a comic. And the art is so careful. It’s a modern classic. And free!

Absolutely paradoxical

There are different types and expressions of tolerance, so I think getting tied up in knots about a mythical all-encompassing tolerance that no cunt on Earth preaches (not even Jesus or the Buddha) is probably a side quest that doesn't need completing. It's like two linguists who've read a class of philosophy having a grammar nazi stand-off. You may as well include being abused and conned by criminals in that kind of tolerance, which is obviously stupid, but it's no more stupid than thinking your personal philosophy is threatened when faced with a nazi whose goals you wanna prevent coming to fruition.

Tolerating people who have characteristics that are not necessarily of their own choosing is not in the same ballpark as tolerating those who want to eradicate that first group. "Leave people alone" is better, it includes preventing the non-leaving alone of people by cunts, e.g. nazis, with no paradoxes involved. "But leave me alone to be a nazi!" ok, what does being a nazi involve? "The sterilisation and extermination of..." lemme just stop you there. Done!

In the immortal words of Karl Poppa:

La jiggy jar-jar do, duhduhduhreduh

Fully agree. Being tolerant is part of the social contract. If you break the rules then why should we play the same game.

Redfash spouting GOP drivel. Astounding.

Oh shit, another reader of the best long running webcomic!

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

It's kind of hard to read this particular footnote as a rejection of tolerance because of how violently it opposes anti-tolerance.

Not a cool guide, nor a coherent argument, nor a good representation of Popper's idea.

Paradoxically, the paradox of tolerance is most often cited in the course of branding someone as "intolerant" and thereby excusing your intolerance of them.

Its a problem of semantics. Who really is sufficiently intolerant to be intolerable?

What the flip is this, looks rad!

Only the Sith deals in absolutes wise sounding bong O.o

I mean that's a long-winded explanation of a simple concept. "Intolerant of intolerance". It's very simple but the bigoted twats try to weasel through loopholes in wordplay.

It's not a paradox, it's a social contract.

I am tolerant of everyone except those who are intolerant of people doing things that hurt no one and/or those who hurt others.

You don't like Nazis? Tolerance granted.

You don't like trans people? Tolerance denied.

It's incredibly simple to understand, isn't paradoxical and is easy to live by.

I've got one for you:

If you wish to be tolerated, you must yourself be tolerant.

Sounds kinda absolute, ngl.

The whole confusion comes from upholding tolerance as a principle or ideal rather than actually understanding it's purpose. When people look at it that way, they either accept it or reject it, but both of those are wrong.

Where does the idea of tolerance come from? Hundreds of years ago, the West was wracked with constant wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants, on top of witch hunts, crusades, inquisitions, the whole "scarlet letter" thing. It was after this whole mess that people decided that it wasn't worth it anymore, and that we should just call truces, that we should allow each other to practice different faiths without coercion. Eventually, this expanded to other aspects beyond just religious beliefs, however, the fundamental core of what it is is that truce between religious factions.

In many cases, it is possible to discuss disagreements and resolve things, or, it is possible to coexist while believing different things. Whether the sacremental wine turns into the blood of Christ literally or figuratively is a perfect example of that.

However, it should be noted that this was a practical compromise driven by a balance of power between the respective sides. The word, "tolerance" should not be confused with the word, "acceptance." To tolerate something implies that you wish it were different, and you're just putting up with it out of necessity. It is a truce, a contract, a ceasefire, between different parties with conflicting aims and ideals. Go back in time and give either side modern assault rifles, a clear advantage, and they'd drop the idea of tolerance in a heartbeat.

When a ceasefire is violated, a certain degree of patience is called for. Itchy trigger fingers can destroy a peace that both sides are invested in maintaining. However, if one side is able to repeatedly and brazenly violate the ceasefire without consequence, then the ceasefire is essentially dead and no longer serves a meaningful purpose.

To view tolerance as a principle and ideal in itself means that you've already decided whether you're going to uphold or abandon the ceasefire before you've even seen how the other side is acting. Accepting tolerance on principle means letting people take advantage of you, while rejecting it on principle means alienating potential allies.

Obviously, it's impossible to tolerate the right because they are so intent on aggression against vulnerable people. However, and this is true, it is possible to tolerate different perspectives on the left, while disagreeing with them. Rather than letting one's experiences with the right inform their approach to tolerance in general, we should look at what is actually minimally necessary to coexist and potentially collaborate with people we disagree with. Instead of logicking one's way into saying that anyone who disagrees on any point is technically being intolerant and therefore paradox of intolerance, deplatform them and treat them exactly like fascists, consider whether they are actually being bigoted and intransigent, or whether it's more mundane disagreement.

This is why they are trying to make “establishment” a slur

Horseshoe theory in action

I am tolerant of intolerance. But I am intolerant of intelorance.

Yup. It's hard to have a conversation about anything when any given side is arguing from emotion, and defaults to accusing the other of being inferior or stupid. It's infuriating.

Absolute Zero?

I agree. Straightforward and simple. But I don't think I know how to simply explain what a social contract is to someone. Does anyone have a good example of a social contract?

So if they want me to tolerate their intolerance of folks like me, they should also be willing to tolerate my intolerance of folks like them.

I have conflicting thoughts about this.

More often than not this explanation is just used as a excuse to hate whatever group you want while labeling yourself as the good one. But applied to the ultimate consequences most people would still be intolerant.

The classical example of not tolerating nazis because they are intolerant to others, is used because it's a flawless example. The definition of a nazi is a person who wants to eliminate other groups from society just because what they are. A tolerant society cannot exist with them, so they have to go. Perfect.

But we have real life problems when we move from the perfect example to practical cases.

1The "everyone I don't like is a nazi" problem. Someone who wants to be a good intolerant just have to label their opponents as nazis, no matter if they are or not. Just the label is good enough.

While Nazis are used as a classical example. The more pure definition is, that tolerant society should not tolerate people who are intolerant. Thus, only allowed intolerance is the intolerance to the intolerant, any other type of intolerance should then make you a valid target for intolerance.

And here is when I see the biggest problem. That society doesn't usually fit most people values. I would give you several examples. Take billionaires, take robbers, take whatever kind of person you don't like, not only don't like but you don't want anyone like that in your society, for reasons different to them being intolerant. There are other undesirable values in a person that sometimes are worse than intolerance. The lack of tolerance to those people really puts you in the same spot as the Nazi in the paradox of intolerance. As you are hating on people for reasons different than they not being tolerant.

I see two honest solutions and one dishonest one.

The first honest solution is to strictly adhere to the idea of being tolerant everyone but the intolerant idea. Which will imply a higher effort to accept people in the society that you currently don't want to accept. Embrace that tolerance is the ultimate goal and just reject the intolerant, accepting everyone else, no matter what.

The second honest solution is to reject complete unconditional tolerance to everyone but the intolerant. Create a more strict set of values of what the society should tolerate. And embrace the idea that complete unconditional tolerance is a not the goal.

The dishonest solution is just lie about it. Seek excuses, loopholes or overcomplicated cherry picking reasonings on why the people you don't want to tolerate are actually intolerants and then covered by the paradox of intolerance and be happy with it.

To each their own. In the later years I'm feeling myself leaning more for the second honest solution. Unconditional tolerance is not a goal per se. I try to create a developed moral system that could actually be universal and that everyone and anyone could and should follow. And think that maybe I should not tolerate anyone that breaks this ethical rules. Basically instead of saying that the "golden rule" is to be tolerant and that's the only rule that people is not allowed to break. My golden rule is more on the lines of "be a good person", which is harder to define but I think it's more solid, and that's the only rule that should not be broken.

And here ends my TED talk.

There are also a plurality of underlying issues not explored by this, because it's treated as first order only problem. Like... why is it that people become intolerant and why they blame certain groups for things.

And usually that's underlying economic or inequality conditions in the society or other forms of social upheaval.... which people generally don't want to address so much as they want to focus on the social sorting of hating and being hateful as the 'solution'. It's much easier to be tolerant when you are in an environment where members are all roughly of equal status, harder when there are perceived or real inequalities and abuses of power.

Real world is more complicated because people don't hate for no reason. They may, have very legit reasons, and you likely may have the same reasons directed towards a different group.

Everyone does vastly over simplify this, because well, they want to use is as a litmus test to prove they are good and other people are bad, and that's the only 'use' of this principle. Which is what folks do with a lot of moral/social guidelines... they want to reduce them to sorting mechanisms with themselves on the 'right' side of the sort... and if you challenge that notion maybe it's not that simple... you must be one of the 'bad' people.

Further, everyone is intolerant of something. Even if they won't admit it. Nor will they admit... that they and everyone else make mistakes. People's mind and behaviors change... a whole other second order factor also totally outside the scope of this 'paradox'. and for a lot of folks on lemmy... you can't ever change or be reformed from your previous views... etc.

We also have the wonderful case of social movements that seek to turn innocuous behaviors into intolerable assaults on themselves, like the 'manspreading' nonsense from Tumblr.

I think it's better understood as a phenomena, not a principle or a rule or any of that. You don't have to 'accept' or 'reject' it. You should think about it though, about the implications of where you draw the line, because in real life it is never as clean as 'nazis bad, everyone non-nazi good', and there are so many legal and other examples that get into murkey waters.

Thanks, I'll have to check it out!

Being a billionaire is a choice, a choice to hoard money to the detriment of everyone and everything around you. One could easily choose to not be a billionaire by paying taxes and funding their local social support services and donating to charity. Intolerance of greed on the scale of billions of dollars should be the norm as it is actively detrimental to society.

Robbery is a violation of personal safety and social boundaries and is also actively detrimental to society. It is also a choice.

Intolerance of the choices of others that violate the social contract of "don't be greedy, don't steal, don't hurt others, etc..." is valid intolerance in my opinion.

Nazis are intolerable because they are intolerant of the vast majority of humanity itself and for reasons outside of most people's control. Sure, you can make it a choice and convert to Judaism, but the vast majority of Jews are born into Judaism; It's not a choice like greed on the scale of billions or breaking and entering.

For that reason alone, Nazis are worth disposing of. The myriad additional reasons to hate Nazis just makes the job easier.

Choose to fit your audience:

• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

• If you deny my right to exist, you forfeit yours

• Fuck around and find out

• Talk shit, get hit

Counter bigots with violent intolerance. The best way to deal with a Nazi, Zionist, Klansman, etc. is with a bullet.

Nobody says "everyone I don't like is a Nazi". But a lot of Nazis, who are rightly disliked by most people for being Nazis seem the see things that way.

Never heard "they call anyone with a different opinion a Nazi!" where the opinion in question didn't turn out to be some real Nazi shit.

Why are we so tied to the word tolerance specifically? Decency, kindness, courtesy, and empathy seem to be more what were all aiming for anyway.

Is it cuz tolerance is the bare minimum? (This is a genuine question)

Example:
"Unless you’re a republican or other type of nazi. Then you can absolutely go all the way to hell.

Tolerance got us here."

this person, comment copy on lemmy, is actually implying that every republican is a nazi. Their use of the world "tolerance" makes me think that they are actually an example of what I say that people use the paradox of intolerance as an excuse to feel vindicated about their thoughts rather than as a moral theory to follow.
It's the first example I found, but I think is hard to deny that a non negligible number of people think that one of the two major parties in the US country is a nazi party. Giving that the US is a two party system saying that the only other side are all nazis, is almost equivalent to saying that everyone that doesn't think like me are nazis.

I've also seen a lot of the time the argument "if you have a table of 10 people sitting with 1 nazi, you have 10 nazis". It's a common argument, that's not even related to those other 9 people ideologies, just that they shared a space with a nazi they automatically get counted as nazis.

As an exercise to these people I would like to ask what "constitutes a nazi" by their thoughts. And afterwards calculate what many people in their country falls under that definition. If the number is high enough I think is more likely that the person is calling nazi to every person who doesn't think like them rather than such a big chunk of the population actually beliefs and follows the national-socialism ideology of Adolf Hitler.

I would guess that is why. We should push for greater ideals, as you say, but I will begrudgingly accept tolerance as the minimum.

So much of this shit is stacked on top of established cultural and social mores anyway.

Case in point, "Decency" can mean a lot of different things to different people. Is this about self-policing your speech and dress? Or extending charity to your neighbors? Or simply staying silent so as not to appear rude? Or being an outspoken crusader in the face of rudeness and impropriety?

Is it cuz tolerance is the bare minimum?

Tolerance is the benchmark for an egalitarian society. And the Hitler/Nazi reference is intended to illustrate the perils of showing tolerance for a foreign belief system, which queues up the "paradox" in question. If your goal is egalitarianism, how do you police against anti-egalitarian sentiment dressed up as "just another point of view"?

And who gets to decide what gets tolerated, anyway? Because any road you take can get you back to fascist tendency.

Is "intolerance of the intolerant" an excuse to wipe up a mob against a foreign religion you find distasteful? Is it a reason to break up social events or try and heckle opposition politicians or vandalize property? Or is it just a vibe you express when prompted, while otherwise allowing the "intolerable" ideology to persist?

This line of logic also doesn't really answer the hard questions, like, "What if the cops are in the club that you find intolerant?" Or "What if the national media club is promoting intolerant beliefs?" How do you refuse to tolerate the powerful, the wealthy, and the socially insulated?

https://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/kill-six-billion-demons-chapter-1/

Kill 6 billion demons. It’s a vast, well crafted universe with intricately personed characters who are never forgotten or discounted. It’s a deconstruction of the hero’s journey that doesn’t ever overstay its welcome. It’s an allegory for modern and ancient and interminable and spiritual and human woes. It’s pretty good.

I found it on lemmy, and it must metastasize!

I think tolerance is simply a liberal idea, and it's been a demonstrably exploitable one. The moment a reactionary says "aren't you supposed to be tolerant", I simply don't know where they're getting that from. I tolerate what I want, and the intolerant don't get to invoke my tolerance.