Tolerance is a social contract, not an ideal. If someone refuses to adhere to the contract, then they are not entitled to the benefits of it either. Hence, there is no paradox. When we say “be tolerant to all” what we mean is “please adhere to the social contract, and assume everyone else does so, until proven otherwise”.
The paradox still exists. You described a system that is intolerant of the intolerant. That system is therefore not tolerant. The paradox is that no system can be completely tolerant… Because intolerance would have to be tolerated, which would make the system intolerant.
Your response would be like saying the boot strap paradox doesn’t exist because I haven’t invented time travel. But, I still need to fuck my grandma or else I never will! Wait…
It’s not a paradox to say “I will be tolerant of anyone who is also tolerant.” Whether that’s a good foundation for society to be built upon is subjective I suppose, but it’s not a paradox.
The paradox only exists in a society that claims to be completely tolerant. The society you’re talking about doesn’t claim to be completely tolerant, but it doesn’t solve the paradox of a completely tolerant society. It, in fact, proves the paradox as the intolerant have taken over the system and are not tolerant of all.
I’m making no judgment on the societal system. I also dislike the intolerant. And… people who want to do back in time to have sex with their grandmother!
Yes, but I and the person you originally replied to weren’t talking about an idealized society that tolerates everything and everyone. The paradox only exists when you take the idea to its extreme. It’s very easy to define a system where people are tolerant, and replying with “b-b-but that’s not truly tolerant” doesn’t help anyone here and only serves to muddy the waters.
The comment I responded to responded to this comment.
I really wish more people understood the paradox of tolerance.
Seemed like I could defend the paradox in a response that ignored the existence of the paradox when the OP was wishing more people could understand it. But sure, i muddied the waters.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Someone needs to explain to me why that’s an absolute/assured (the italicized part).
That seems like one hell of an assumption, and not a foregone conclusion.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance,
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other’s ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.
Plus the concept we’re discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that’s a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.
But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.
The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who’s being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don’t think so.
And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant.
Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.
100% of people will not agree on what’s intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the “you’re intolerant” excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.
America’s worked fine so far on tolerance. It’s one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they’re wrong, but don’t try to silence them, and their ideas won’t gain traction, and they will not gain followers.
The center will not hold, if we’re trying to silence each other.
It’s true the same way that the boxer with one hand tied behind his back will lose a fight. All other things being equal, the side that limits itself will always lose because they deny themselves paths to victory the opposition can use.
That’s what people on here take as facts. A paradox on Wikipedia. Get the fuck out of here. No one needs to read that uslesss garbage. Who defines what is or isn’t tolerate? “Nope, your being intolerant of (insert crazy fucking shit) off the the gulags with ya.
These people are as bad as their far right counter parts and can’t even see it. Dripping with the same hate that they feel for the “enemy “
Wikipedia lists 17 different references from the last 70 years on this topic. It is not a new concept. It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
Your entire comment is either disingenuous or asinine.
It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
4chan is not America. Free Speech seems to work fine in America, we’re still here.
And it isn’t about absolute free speech, it’s about giving everyone a turn at the microphone. You can definitely disagree with what someone’s saying, but you should never stop them from trying to say it.
I really wish more people understood the paradox of tolerance.
Tolerance is a social contract, not an ideal. If someone refuses to adhere to the contract, then they are not entitled to the benefits of it either. Hence, there is no paradox. When we say “be tolerant to all” what we mean is “please adhere to the social contract, and assume everyone else does so, until proven otherwise”.
deleted by creator
The paradox still exists. You described a system that is intolerant of the intolerant. That system is therefore not tolerant. The paradox is that no system can be completely tolerant… Because intolerance would have to be tolerated, which would make the system intolerant.
Your response would be like saying the boot strap paradox doesn’t exist because I haven’t invented time travel. But, I still need to fuck my grandma or else I never will! Wait…
It’s not a paradox to say “I will be tolerant of anyone who is also tolerant.” Whether that’s a good foundation for society to be built upon is subjective I suppose, but it’s not a paradox.
The paradox only exists in a society that claims to be completely tolerant. The society you’re talking about doesn’t claim to be completely tolerant, but it doesn’t solve the paradox of a completely tolerant society. It, in fact, proves the paradox as the intolerant have taken over the system and are not tolerant of all.
I’m making no judgment on the societal system. I also dislike the intolerant. And… people who want to do back in time to have sex with their grandmother!
Yes, but I and the person you originally replied to weren’t talking about an idealized society that tolerates everything and everyone. The paradox only exists when you take the idea to its extreme. It’s very easy to define a system where people are tolerant, and replying with “b-b-but that’s not truly tolerant” doesn’t help anyone here and only serves to muddy the waters.
The comment I responded to responded to this comment.
Seemed like I could defend the paradox in a response that ignored the existence of the paradox when the OP was wishing more people could understand it. But sure, i muddied the waters.
From Wikipedia…
Someone needs to explain to me why that’s an absolute/assured (the italicized part).
That seems like one hell of an assumption, and not a foregone conclusion.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
No, it can stay in a steady state, or if the majority of the population agrees one way it can move back towards tolerance.
I would argue the opposite. To be able to deal with intolerance you have to be even more tolerant to be patient of them and their opinions.
You’re making a false statement and a straw man.
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance, and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
I don’t think I’m using a straw man. The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical abstraction and I’m describing it within that context.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other’s ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.
Plus the concept we’re discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that’s a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.
But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.
The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who’s being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don’t think so.
Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.
100% of people will not agree on what’s intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the “you’re intolerant” excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.
America’s worked fine so far on tolerance. It’s one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they’re wrong, but don’t try to silence them, and their ideas won’t gain traction, and they will not gain followers.
The center will not hold, if we’re trying to silence each other.
It’s true the same way that the boxer with one hand tied behind his back will lose a fight. All other things being equal, the side that limits itself will always lose because they deny themselves paths to victory the opposition can use.
HOW we win, matters.
Not when the threat is existential.
I would argue, especially then.
So you’re saying a fascist dictatorship is preferable to a democracy that doesn’t tolerate fascists? I would say that is objectively false.
No, this is what I’m saying…
THAT we win matters.
Those who want the benefit of the social contract without adhering to it will be dominant as they have an upperhand.
No, the intolerant won’t be dominant, because they will require everyone to follow them to have that power, and they won’t be followed.
The false premise doesn’t match the reality ‘on the ground’.
That’s what people on here take as facts. A paradox on Wikipedia. Get the fuck out of here. No one needs to read that uslesss garbage. Who defines what is or isn’t tolerate? “Nope, your being intolerant of (insert crazy fucking shit) off the the gulags with ya. These people are as bad as their far right counter parts and can’t even see it. Dripping with the same hate that they feel for the “enemy “
Wikipedia lists 17 different references from the last 70 years on this topic. It is not a new concept. It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
Your entire comment is either disingenuous or asinine.
4chan is not America. Free Speech seems to work fine in America, we’re still here.
And it isn’t about absolute free speech, it’s about giving everyone a turn at the microphone. You can definitely disagree with what someone’s saying, but you should never stop them from trying to say it.