https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1s8o0uq/are_they_purposefully_misconstruing_poppers/

In my time pretty much everybody knew what Popper's Paradox of Tolerance meant. (probably due to the amount of Germans who lived through part of this, or had parents who lived through this)

It's basically you can't be so tolerant that you'd "tolerate" nazis coming to every meeting or protest you had and killing - severely beating anyone there who disagreed with them. Which did happen in Germany in the 30's. Basically once violence starts challenging the state itself, you step in and stomp. However you let it get to that point because otherwise it's a game of saying who is the nazi. It's pretty clear in popper's open society, especially when you consider when he wrote it.

It's now meant to many young folks that you have to be intolerant of what they define as intolerance altogether - this is nuts, because you can include anything under this rubric. And including "any" violence. So you have a few shootings, oops that intolerance and violence and we need to censor everyone with this view. (hence stochastic terrorism and using that as a cudgel to shut up anyone with an honest view. or today using violence against a few random synagogues to shut up anyone criticising israel)

Is this a purposeful mistranslation of Popper, or what am I missing here? And do kids actually buy this, or is this just redditor-speak? The arrogance in the former, not to mention that assumption that one is "right" is ironically the mentality Popper was speaking of.

I know this is a marxist forum who probably doesn't even respect Popper, however I don't think his original thesis is a bad idea to have.

Pictured: carton 1 that's wrong versus cartoon 2.

I still can't believe that folks actually buy into #1. No wonder why they are so censor-heavy.

If this can't even be gotten right we're fucked.

Popper's paradox is self-fulfilling. Fighting people with an identity strengthens their identity. Their convictions are caused by something which most likely can be changed.

I've heard it described as a contract instead of a paradox. You agree to be tolerant and get the benefit of being tolerated. Those that don't subscribe to the contract aren't covered by it.

The quote in that image seems to characterize his words differently than the full context would imply.

"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

The fists or pistols component was a consequence of tolerating the intolerant, not a precondition for intolerable tolerance.

It could very well be that you simply don't agree with Popper.

In my time pretty much everybody knew what Popper's Paradox of Tolerance meant. (probably due to the amount of Germans who lived through part of this, or had parents who lived through this)

Germany is sort of the exact opposite of what you describe though, so this is a bit confusing. The Nazi ideology is criminalized. This is inline with the described behavior of the first comic.

You might look into Rawls, who seems to have a belief more inline with what you describe.

I've also heard this, but I think it's still insufficient.

If im intolerant of X, and so you are intolerant of Me, the some third party can be intolerant if you because of your intolerance towards me.

If it's a binary state of coverage, then ultimately everyone exits in a chain reaction.

If SOME people get to apply a reactionary intolerance WHILE remaining themselves tolerable (covered themselves by the contract), you need some arbiter to determine who those people are. And that's actually really bad, because anything short of perfect arbitration actually turns the paradox of oppression into a psedo-intellectual justification to apply coordinated violence... very much like religion is used.

Which, from what I understand from the like 14 pixels in OPs post is the nature of the concern.

From what I'm hearing, it sounds like you're not tolerant of those who aren't tolerant of the intolerant, so I shouldn't tolerate your intolerance of the intolerance-intolerant.

I think the biggest thing is that it isn't a binary.
I would ostracize a Nazi. It's an ideology that's incompatible with civil society. If you came up and said we should destroy them outright because you hate them, I would disagree with you, and quite likely oppose your views.

Reducing it to a binary loses nuance, regardless of which way you split the difference. Retreating to quiet disagreement because more is potentially too much is no better than the opposite where anything short of overt violence is acceptable for any intolerance.

By accepting that it's not binary, you can more easily see that you don't need an authority or arbiter to make that judgement for you: you're your own aribter of who you associate with, protest or argue with.

Right, but once you decide that you are your own arbiter, then everyone is thier own arbiter, and at that point there is NOTHING COMPELLING about the thought experiment AT ALL.

At that point, you're just saying "I can exclude whoever I want for whatever reason I want", and that isn't really anything compelling l.

Hair-splitting nonsense, and the alleged correction is bait.

You're not missing anything.

Popular belief of philosophical concepts almost always results in misinterpretation and misguided belief of the concept, usually from overgeneralization and oversimplification of the concept to make it accessible to a lay audience. This isn't any different with science or other areas of specialized knowledge.

The vast majority of keyboard warriors are armchair expects who have no expertise in any of this, but are using the crib notes version of this argument to basically just go around feeling smart and superior and using it as a metaphor to club other over the head with. They are not interested in the original context of the argument, it's limitations, or it's critiques

I think my favorite other example of this is Kant's Categorical Imperative. The lay interpretation of it gets toss around and overgeneralized, and people try to claim it's 'stupid' coming up with stupid examples that make it seem absurd, like using it to justify eating cheeseburgers all day. But that takes away the original intent and context of the argument which was specifically about moral actions, totally ignoring the limits and framework of the Categorical Imperative... which define it narrowly. put another way... the categorical imperative is not a 'rule of thumb'... but people often treat it that way. The paradox of tolerance is similarly misunderstood.

anyway, don't take anyone seriously on the internet who starts quoting the paradox of tolerance. take it seriously if it's in a properly sourced article or book. Not some dumb comic strip that is necessarily dumb it down for a lay audience as in info-graphic.

Here is my crazy idea... go read Popper if you want to understand it. And then go read his critics. Go to the source rather than letting other people's hearsay about his work be your guide to his thought.

yes, that is a pragmatic consideration that isn't covered in these discussions.

the paradox makes the liberal assumption that identities and beliefs are freely chosen choices. but that not true for many people and certainly not true for illiberal societies which are defined by intolerance.

Remember, it's not a binary. And you are actually allowed to disagree with or socially exclude people for whatever reason you want.

I'm not talking a thought experiment, I'm talking actual morality in real life. If you're a Nazi or similar shit you actually can't come to my house.
A binary needs some coordination for intolerance because disagreement is as strong as violence. Intolerance is intolerance.
If you have nuance most of the spectrum of ways that people can reject each other remain open. I don't need a moral guide to tell me it's okay to not invite someone I think is an asshole to my house.

When you juxtapose 'tolerance' with anything else and its antithesis you immediately see how this isn't a complex concept. At all.

Pacifism and warfare. (Are we still pacifist if we just do a little war, as a treat?) Anti-racism and white supremacists. (Can racism be ended by racially segregating?) Religion and atheism. (Can much can a religion abandon the framework or principles of faith?)

Things are negated by their opposites.

Yes, I agree.

I'm saying that within that framework, "the paradox of intolerance" ceases to have any conceptual value, because it is a social framework, and "anyone can do anything they themselves think is right" is an individualistic model.

I think that's a bit misplaced. If you are intolerant of anything outside the contact of tolerance that's ok. If you are intolerant of something inside the contract it's not.

So if a person is intolerant of you for being intolerant of something within the contract they are still inside the contract and don't cause a chain reaction.

Now let's do something a bit more nuanced, let's say person A is intolerant of religion, religion is not a person so there's not need to exclude them from the contract. If A is intolerant of people belonging to a religion then it's a different matter and A falls outside the contract. So for example you can tolerate christians in general up until they become intolerant of gay people.

In practice this is done via hate crime laws with the arbiter being a professional judge in many countries and enforced by police. This is why so many constitution have protected classes such as disabled, homosexuals and religion.

I'm not sure that I agree. You're viewing the it as a social model or guidance, but I don't think that's what it's best described as.
It's an observation about the dynamics of tolerance and intolerance. There's no "should" implied by the observation. Popper has an opinion, but the observation is justification for the opinion, not part of it.

I feel like you're hearing me say that "everyone is morally permitted to do what they think is right" in a way that implies others must accept it.
I'm saying you don't need someone else to tell you what's right and wrong. If you and enough people like you believe it's never justified to push back on a belief, then eventually that belief will get pushed out.

Poppers opinion, justified by the paradox, is that in order to survive a civil society must allow itself the means to defend itself. If you think it's wrong to cut people out of your life over politics, an individual action, you eventually get people who don't see a problem with jailing people for opposing views.

The original person I responded to was describing the paradox as a social contract, and I was saying I don't think it really makes sense conceptually as a social contract for reasons. What I'm hearing you say is that it it prescribes nothing, so I would infer that to mean that is isn't really an agreement either, so not really a social contract either.

I still get the feeling that we're roughly at the same place but took different paths to get there

Ah, I see. To me, what they said and what I said seem effectively analogous. "If you tolerate others to some degree, then others will tolerate you to some degree" doesn't really prescribe an action, it just describes the consequence of the "paradox".

My focus was more on the binary aspect of your response, since I don't think it fits and it leads to different conclusions.
A dinner discussion is not the same as killing someone. That gradient of tolerance is what allows people to be tolerant of the intolerant without the infinite regress you mentioned.