Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Except if you view tolerance as what it is, a social contract. I’ll tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.
Thus I get along great with the religious person that just wishes to practise their religion in peace, and respects my existence as a connoisseur of cock outside of it, but we don’t have to put up with the neo-nazis calling for both of our heads.
And so the paradox dissolves.
That’s true. But it also requires that both sides have the same definition of tolerance and the same definitions of good an evil.
For instance, what if that religion being practiced believed that homosexuality is a sin, and you did not?
In their eyes they’d be justified in thinking you were intolerant of their god-given righteousness and you’d be justified in thinking that they were being intolerant of the liberty of others.
Maybe they actively roam the streets harassing gay people, maybe they have laws about a death penalty, or maybe they just talk about them as unclean. Where does your tolerance start? Is it only at words and not action? Does that mean hate speech is ok?
The paradox here isn’t to do with tolerance and intolerance, but the assertion that either of those things exist as objective view points.
Thinking something someone else dies us wrong or immoral is is not the same as being intolerant.
A religious person thinking homosexuality is a sin and simply looks down on gay people, but otherwise takes no action is being tolerant. They are not being accepting, just tolerating. Someone who actively tries to stop gay people from existing (through laws, conversion therapy, murder, etc.) is intolerant.
Now what if they don’t actively seek to persecute, but they vote for people that follow their religion exclusively. These people enact laws that are harmful, but these laws were not the reason they chose them at the ballot. Still tolerant? Has it stepped into active yet?
This is the issue. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
That would be intolerance since they are voting for someone who is intolerant. Assuming they didn’t know that person was intolerant and they don’t actively vote against that person in the future once they found out.
Is it still intolerance if when they voted they didn’t know? Or since they voted the politician changes their views? In your scenario it seems like wilful action is the decider. So, if it’s not wilful, it’s not intolerant?
Let’s take trump, as an example. Many claimed he was racist and misogynistic before he was elected.People called him fascist. He’s now indicted on fraud and sexual assault etc. There was a breach of the capital. Are those that voted for him responsible, or just those convicted? If he lies and says it wasn’t his intent, but most people see through it, are those that continue to vote for him ignorant or wilfully ignorant?
If it is blatantly obvious that the person is lying then they are willfully ignorant, and if they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong then they are intolerant.
If they were lied to with no reason to believe the person was lying and immediately stop supporting them once they find out, then they were not being intolerant. Hard to fault someone who acted based on the knowledge they had at the time.
Anyone who did not see through Trump’s lies were willfully ignorant because reality constantly contradicted him. But most people knew he was lying because he constantly contradicted himself and they agreed with his intolerant views and knew he was lying about anything he said that sounded tolerant.
So 30%+ of America is intolerant by your measure? Seems awfully high. That’s the paradox of tolerance. The more you tolerate intolerance, the more it spreads. It’s insidious.
Personally, I think your measure of what is tolerant and intolerant is not quite right. It’s beliefs and actions that matter. You seem to tolerate beliefs, even if intolerant, so long as the actions are within a framework you don’t think is acting intolerant. That framework will get pushed to the limit, then stretched, then breached. So, despite a different definition, the paradox applies. Allowing the intolerant to amplify and spread their views should not be tolerated. They won’t follow the rules in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t argue in earnest. They spread hatred and it grows. Tolerating the intolerance, not correcting it and calling it out allows it to grow. That is why intolerance should not be tolerated.
A religious person thinking homosexuality is a sin and simply looks down on gay people,
The problem with this is, this religious person won’t want to live around gay people and will do anything in its power to do so.
The very fact there’s now a bunch of comments each defining “tolerance” as something different but with equal fervour sort of proves the point.
Look, I have no answers, but I was particularly commenting on the assertion that the paradox dissolved if you think about it. It doesn’t. It’s not that easy, and if you think it is, you are the reason why the paradox upholds.
The social contract is to tolerate that which doesn’t harm or significantly affect you. Someone can choose not to be gay, and that’s fine. They don’t have to “tolerate” a gay guy hitting on them. However, 2 gay guys sleeping together is none of their business. In your case, the religious person can feel what they want. When they start trying to impose that on the gay guy, they are being intolerant.
Things get more complex when worldviews start impinging on each other. E.g. the religious person can have issues with a “gay pride” parade. At the same time the gay community has a reasonable right to express themselves. The balance of these views is a lot of how the rest of society functions.
People don’t choose their sexuality. They can choose not to act on it, but that’s repression and is harmful.
We’ve got to the crux though. There are opposing viewpoints. A gay pride parade might be tolerated, but what if it is protested, peacefully. I should the pride parade tolerate the protest?
That’s where the debates and larger social attitudes. A gay pride parade, by its nature impinges on those in the area. How much we accept that is part of a larger social discussion. It is unreasonable to completely ban big public events, but also unreasonable to allow any and all, without a proper understanding of their effects.
In your case, a protest would generally be outside this. If the protesters travel in, to put themself in the environment, then they are being intolerant. Conversely, it’s not if the parade goes straight past their church, and they put up signs etc. In the first, they are deliberately putting themselves into the situation. In the latter, they are being affected by it, through no action of their own.
The orange parades in Northern Ireland are a good example of this problem. They want to march along “traditional” routes. Those routes take them through areas who disagree with them. Both groups have very reasonable arguments. Who’s rights should win out?
So, if it’s just about being in the area deciding, is it intolerant for the gay people that live in an area to protest the church daily that preaches they are living in sin?
You seem to be tying yourself in knots trying to justify what is tolerance and what is valid expression. It shouldn’t depend on where the bigot happens to be located. Tolerance is not protesting or denigrating anyone else’s right to exist. Preaching that gay is sinful is not tolerance. Marching past people who disagree with you just to inflame tensions, a la northern Ireland, is not valid free speech.
If Jews in Nazi Germany had to just accept that nazis don’t like Jews, and wellz we’re in Germany, whatcha gonna do? Would that be in line with your thinking? Or should we say that antisemitism is wrong, even when it’s within a regime that believes in it? That’s the paradox of tolerance. You don’t tolerate intolerance just because it’s someone’s belief.
Self defense isn’t oppression.
I agree with your statement, but out of context, it seems meaningless.
That’s true. But it also requires that both sides have the same definition of tolerance and the same definitions of good an evil.
It’s a similar problem to respect. If I said “I’ll show you respect if you show me respect” I could mean that I’ll give you due regard for your feelings if you’ll do the same. However, too often it means I’ll give due regard for your feelings if you’ll treat me with deep admiration.
It’s less about tolerance of people and more about tolerance of beliefs, but more importantly actions. It requires personal agency and bodily autonomy to be sacrosanct to function. Ergo, if you wish to cut off your arm and make a taco out of it, that’s fine, but you cannot force someone to eat said taco, nor can you force someone to assist you in cutting off your arm. It’s your body, your choice, your action, and your consequences.
This means, if you have a religion where women are viewed as inferiors, that’s perfectly fine to have. You can believe that women are lesser beings as much as you want, and you’re free to treat women like the complete and total dickwad you are, but you cannot violate their personal autonomy. You cannot force anyone to partake in your beliefs or act in accordance with your beliefs.
I’d say that roaming gangs of people harrassing others does impeach on said others’ personal autonomy, and thus wouldn’t be tolerated.
Believe that homosexuality is a sin? Great. Don’t engage in homosexuality. Believe that your labia needs cutting off? Great, do it, find someone else who shares your belief and have it done to you. You may not force this upon your daughter though, your rights end where hers begin.
You’re allowed to have your god, and someone else can have theirs, even if said gods are complete polar opposites and clash with one another. Deal with it, or sod off.
Then you’ll have to take it on a case by case basis. Like with everything. There’s no perfect system. There never will be a perfect system.
The line is when actions are taken.
Religious people are allowed to believe and say that homosexuality is a sin.
Atheists are allowed to believe and say that religious people are stupid.
I don’t believe that hate speech is defined the same way everywhere, but it’s not really that difficult to say “we don’t legislate sin; nor stupidity.” People expressing their views is not necessarily hate speech. Calling something a sin or calling something stupid is not on par with a call to action, or attempt to intimidate a group of people.
deleted by creator
my existence as a connoisseur of cock
A penis sommelier, if you will
Penial professional.
Fallos friend
Phalluscionado
Worshipper of wang
I’ll tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.
I’d only comment that it’s not just about tolerating me. I am intolerant of people who are intolerant of others, unless they follow this contract.
But then not everything is about tolerance of other people. I don’t tolerate people who litter, for example, even if they tolerate me.
That’s a fair point. I think it’s more about respecting and tolerating people’s personal agency and bodily autonomy. You don’t need to respect someone’s beliefs in order to tolerate them. I personally think religion is idiotic, but I tolerate it existing. I recognise that it isn’t my right to dictate whether someone worships or not.
It all naturally needs to work within the framework of society. You can’t force someone not to litter, but if littering is a fineable offense, then the litterer must recognise that while no one can stop them from littering, there can be consequences to their actions.
That’s the final panel & speech bubbles.
Have you seen those Denizli roosters, they’re are huge
Not that kind of cock, but also that kind of cock. I love chickens, I just don’t want them in my body.
Its not a paradox.
Tolerance is a social contract.
If you refuse to be part of the social contract, then you do not receive its protection.
it is not paradoxical to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract to harm individuals or society. Being violently intolerant against them is nothing but acting in the defense of our own personhood, the personhood of our fellows, and the good of our society.
Exactly, it’s only really a paradox of you try to define “tolerance” as a completely unqualified imperative. Tolerance of what?
Semantically speaking, “Are you in favor of tolerance?” Does not express a proposition, while “Do you tolerate everything?” without additional qualification is descriptively negative. No paradox at all.
I always cringe when I read comments like this.
Interwar Germany considered Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and various others to not be “part of the social contract”.
Reading your comment with that idea in mind: It is “not paradoxical” to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract. “Being violently intolerant against them” is nothing but acting in the defense of self, defense of German people, and the good of German society.
The truly terrifying part is the inevitable rebuttal. It’s always been some variation of “Yeah, but my cause is righteous!”, as though the Germans thought themselves to be evil in 1923.
The paradox is that Popper cribbed his philosophy from Mein Kampf, and nobody seems to realize it. Popper’s paradox should be seen as a lesson on the insidiousness of fascism.
I always cringe when I read comments like this.
Cringes at my comments, has no problem with trying to somehow equate social progress and tolerance with nazism.
Ad hominem.
If you think paraphrasing what you said back to you is an ad hominem, maybe, just maybe, you should reconsider your opinion.
Is that how you see it? They “paraphrased” my own statement?
The foundation of my argument is that Interwar German people believed Jews to be enemies of their society. I don’t think that is a controversial claim.
What happens when those interwar German people adopt the philosophy described in the parent comment? What happens when they operate against their enemies in exactly the way that the parent commenter suggested?
Let’s try another tack: there are people today who believe homosexuality is an intolerant act against the social contract. There are people today who believe trans people are intolerant of the social contract. We would both likely call them bigots. Should we support these people calling for intolerance of the people they deem intolerant of their cis/hetero lifestyles?
I think you misunderstand the original post. Being tolerant and inclusive ist not a contract you can be for or against, it is the contract you act for or against.
If I act against the contract by being intolerant of others i will be excluded. In your example a homosexual person by being homosexual is not acting against the contract. He/she by being homosexual does not exclude other people from society. If I say: “They have no place in society!”, I am the intolerant one and should be excluded from the contract.
I think I understood the original post correctly.
I would argue that they can and do frame their arguments in such a way as to qualify themselves as victims of gay/trans intolerance. The most obvious would be any criticism of “cancel culture”. An argument that gay/trans supporters are “canceling” people for minor, not-intolerant slights would justify their counter-intolerance under the paradox, and set up the conditions I outlined.
I would say that your argument is overly technical.
Adam and Bob are both homophobes. Adam argues gay people shouldn’t exist, and then argues that’s gay people want to cancel him. Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him, and then argues that gay people should not exist. With the technical interpretation you have presented, I would have to conclude that Adam has violated the social contract. He has indicated intolerance against gay people first, justifying the counter-intolerance against him. Bob, however, claims to be intolerated by gay people, which then justifies his counter-intolerance of gay people.
I consider Adam and Bob to be functionally identical. I think a valid philosophical model would evaluate them equally. I consider the technicality you describe to be an insignificant error in logic rather than the fundamental operating principle of the paradox.
What you are talking about is more consistent with the “Non-Aggression Principle” than Popper’s Paradox.
Are you saying that interwar Germany was a tolerant society?
They were pretty tolerant of Aryans and other who accepted the “social contract”. It was only those who “refused the social contract” that they really had a problem with. But we’ve decided that it’s OK to be intolerant toward those who refuse the contract.
I was just coming to say this, thanks!
Well put, but even so, the social contract is still amenable to social changes at different times. Social values change over time and so does the social contract. One day people are more liberal, the next conservative, far left or far right. What was accepted before by society becomes forbidden. What was forbidden is now accepted. That’s why I think free speech is a never ending discussion and debate.
I’m not saying that Popper’s paradox has no merit and I am not in favour of stifling free speech due to possibility of intolerance, but there is a fine line with exercising free speech and harming others through hate speech. That’s why the debate on free speech must continue and that’s the best we could do as society without stifling the right to free speech and dehumanising and harming others.
I dont know who you are, and I’m not going to make any assumptions.
but I will tell you.
You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments. a certain group that wants to use tolerance against the tolerant and constantly try to debate for no other reason to get the goal posts shifted and their hatred and bigotry accepted as normal discourse.
You may want to reconsider the position you have, because… at least in my experience, theres only one group of people that tend to make those arguments
Is there?
It it possible you just assume that anyone who makes such an argument must be a member of that group?
Well, If it quacks like a duck, and sieg heils like a duck…
That’s the thing, who defines hate speech? Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed. Now, depending on the country, being a critic of religions is a non-issue. But even doing so still is a grey area because criticising ideas is occasionally mixed with bigotry to the individual or group itself.
Criticising government policies, exposing government corruption, could be charged as treason in many cases throughout history and even to this day. But many critics could either be recognised, demonised or ignored, depending on whether the population care enough about politics or not. Some population care enough and protests, some don’t because they are politically apathetic.
That’s why the debate on free speech is never ending. It is always a case by case basis. And I think we should be comfortable with straddling the line.
tolerance does not equal free speech, laws or societal norms.
Long ago, blasphemy is a punishable offense because the then more religious society deems it to be-- many were killed.
would you say this was a tolerant society? do you think if people tolerated this behavior it would no longer be acceptable?
you’re free to say what you want but that doesn’t mean the statement is tolerant or intolerant, it depends on if you’re infringing on someone else’s right to existence.
Tolerance and free speech are intrinsically linked. Historically, free speech has been based on the value of tolerance. But as time went on, because of recent history, maximum tolerance of free speech has led to hate speech and thus we know there is limit to it.
Social mores are ever changing is what I’m saying. You mentioned that free speech is based on social contract, which is based on the underlying social mores and values. To us, what the past valued is not tolerant but for them it is. They think criticising religion is for the good of society, especially that religion has been the cornerstone of social order for many cultures for generations. But as time progressed, we learned better that religions are basically made up and is abused by those in power. And even within just fifteen to twenty years ago, we did not tolerate lgbt because that’s what society has just taught us. We did not question the prejudice against lgbt until recent years, because there is implicit consequence that going against the social norms would destabilise perceived order.
That being said, tolerance and free speech are ever evolving with time, influenced by many factors, for better or for worse. The middle ground in my opinion is to continue debating. I was an absolutist on free speech until I learned what it leads to. But at the same time, restricting free speech and tolerance in general could lead to slippery slope with unpredictable consequence because it could be applied to just about anything. Who defines what is tolerable or hate speech? We know that governments and societies around the world impose certain restrictions based on arbitrary yet vague ideas whether legal or moral.
Merriam-Webster: Tolerance - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
you’re trying to change the definition of the word to justify intolerance based on societal norms. by your logic would you consider the Talibans oppression of women tolerant because the powers in charge say it’s the societal standard?
It’s a slippery slope because social mores are, well, social constructs after all. What was acceptable isn’t anymore and vice versa. What is being debated is always a case by case basis. It’s not hard to grasp. Debate on tolerance and free speech should be thought more as a metaphorical court rather than a marketplace of idea. Restricting women’s rights in Afghanistan is not up for debate. But criticising a government policy or religion. What exactly are being talked about in the first? What is being railed against the government and religion? Define what is to be discussed first instead of going on abstract and then we can get back to discussion.
would you say this was a tolerant society?
I would say it was only intolerant of those who were intolerant of its norms.
True, but not a meme. More like an infographic.
And a pretty poor one at that. It doesn’t demonstrate the concept.
Sorry sir, we only do soapboxes here.
I’ve always disliked how this is described as a paradox. It only highlights a broader point found in many systems, a just system is never about “the good” outnumbering “the bad”. It’s about a balanced equilibrium, as are most relationships. Besides, allowing intolerance is not a tolerant act, that’s not the way we define that term. To make such a claim would be as ridiculous as a racist person saying they are practicing tolerance by not challenging or question any of their bigoted thoughts and instead just letting them play out.
I view it as a contract. If you don’t abide by it, you are not covered
Fully agree. The only catch with this is it can be distorted with propaganda to point to anyone as being intolerant, with enough saturation. The bar for recognizing intolerance needs to be fairly high.
Why?
-
We don’t want to risk further radicalizing those still within reach and not completely indoctrinated.
-
We don’t want to risk a false accusation and provoke witch-hunts.
-
We don’t want the intolerant to use this against the tolerant.
It’s why I’m always a bit leery of the knee-jerk punch-a-nazi movements.
This was my first thought. If people choose what’s intolerant based on preference then anything can be intolerant.
deleted by creator
I’ve personally witnessed my little brother express hating the left more than Nazis after he was banned from a video game for calling someone a retard.
Appeasement doesn’t work with an opponent incapable of concession.
-
It’s only a paradox because the creator of the infographic has oversimplified what intolerance is.
When nazis are intolerant of a minority group, or whatever their target is, are violent towards them.
When the general society is intolerant of nazis, they are not usually calling for nazis to be killed or harmed.
And the creator does not differentiate between how a government deals with nazi versus the people. A government may “tolerate” nazis when it comes to free speech, and then be “intolerant” of nazis when they commit violence, and arrest or prosecute them. The general populace, unlike the government, cannot prosecute nazis (legally), they can only shun them. The creator clumsily does not differentiate between legal consequences and social consequences.
Basically, the infographic creator is trying to both-sides this shit, when one side want ppl dead, while other side just want nazis to go away. They are not the same. Moronic, sophomoric, low IQ. Too bad this may actually work on some people. That’s the sad part.
When the general society is intolerant of nazis, they are not usually calling for nazis to be killed or harmed.
And why aren’t we doing that? They’re literally Nazis?
Fuckin A, right?
Someone get on that Nazi killing detail, please.
I do not get why the war against them expired.
They are wearing and flying the colors of Nazi Germany, they should still be enemies.
Because we’re not Nazis.
If ten people knowingly sit down to a meal with a Nazi, you have 11 Nazis.
There is no better response than the one you’ve given
This just kevin-bacons all human beings into nazihood.
Everyone’s a little bit racist sometimes…
Doesn’t mean we go around committing hate criiiiimes!
Ethnic jokes might be uncouth
But you laugh because they’re based on truth
Don’t take them as personal attacks
Everyone enjoys them, so relax
One day I should actually see the play that song is from…
This gets abused a lot by people who claim agency over what is intolerance and what isn’t. It would seem an easy and straightforward enough distinction but in reality there seems to be a lot of wiggle room.
absolutely it gets abused. any time anyone wants you to tolerate what they want you to(defend their own tolerance), they might suggest that you’re not being tolerant enough. (suggesting you intolerant)
this means that both intolerance of reasonable rules, as well as intolerance to unreasonable rules can always be twisted as “intolerant of the tolerant ruling”.
essentially, whatever an authority establishes as being right/good must be tolerated, whereas what they consider wrong/bad will not be tolerated.
of course most reasonable people know that what people think is good/bad/right/wrong varies massively, and how tricky and meaningless this fact can make the whole idea of “tolerating the intolerant”. it certainly doesn’t help in convincing the intolerant to be tolerant, so i think it’s not worth talking about.
It happened with the UK.
Our political landscape went to shit when mainstream platforms started giving highly right wing and racist parties like UKIP and the BNP platforms.
It’s not the paradox, it’s the common sense.
Removed by mod
That makes no sense. It’s easy to have multiple cultures with cultures that don’t assimilate. In fact, not assimilating is required to end up with multiculturalism, otherwise everyone ends up assimilated in to a monoculture.
Though perhaps it’s just stemming from the use of “accept” instead of “tolerate”. Those are two very, VERY different words.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
From what I’ve seen people use this as an argument for censorship. Personally I believe in proportional responses.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad. Censorship against speech regarding the government should be protected. However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas, and many countries censor hate speech. We censor people’s ability to physically and emotionally harm others. We censor threats. Censorship isn’t inherently bad, and is already used functionally everywhere, just ask ChatGPT.
I do however think censorship can be dangerous. I think the censorship we see in public forums (including lemmy) already treads on the toes of legitimate intellectual conversation of objective views on hate speech and offensive language. Tone policing is incredibly intellectually disingenuous, but is widespread because feelings trump literacy. I think the censorship of individual words is supremely dangerous because it also bans or limits the conversation around those words, their usage, etymology, and understanding their use. Comprehension of offensive things is just as valuable as understanding anything else, if not more so should you wish to fight them, but censorship of offensive things without context destroys the capacity for understanding to permeate the social consciousness.
However it’s perfectly legitimate to censor harmful ideas,
What is an isn’t a harmful idea changes drastically between generations. This would have been used to censor information about homosexuality before 1995 or so. “Harmful” as modernly defined is a subjective standard.
No it’s not. Harm has a definition.
Not one that remains objective over time. In 1820 Atheism, and Homosexuality would be considered harmful; in 1920 Racial equality would have been considered harmful, as would Unionization. Imagine the things we consider harmful today that our descendants in 2120 will consider us barbaric for.
It’s in the dictionary. Hasn’t changed in a few hundred years.
Sodomy was once considered harm. Masturbation was once deemed to be “self abuse”. Some people consider vaccination and masks to be harmful. Judaism was seen as harmful by interwar Germans.
The dictionary defines the word; it does not determine whether a particular act can be described by that word. Harm is subjective, and changes.
Yes, congratulations, you figured out what the other poster didn’t. Shame you think you’re disagreeing with me, but I’ll take your unintended agreeance even if you don’t have the comprehension to understand why. Nuance, only for the literate.
: to damage or injure physically or mentally : to cause harm
You don’t think the definition of mental harm has changed over the last few hundred years?
Read the rest of the page, context is included.
The things that cause harm change, the definition of harm is constant, not all harm is equal.
This assumes that censorship is inherently bad.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad, and I especially hate the idea that people think they have the authority to restrict what others learn about.
I do consider suppressing the opinions and expressions of others as inherently bad
Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
There’s a reason I clarified that censorship of words and concepts for education is dangerous, censoring people using those concepts to cause harm is not.
Or did you stop reading after the first sentence?
Dude… If you don’t understand that my comment is responding to your post in its entirety, that ain’t my problem.
Then go support your local Nazi’s right to their fair say. Or maybe you want to rethink that.
Even people I find abhorrent have rights. That’s kind of how it works. Like your opinion is drastically harmful to my way of life, and I think people like yourself have a misguided concept of what’s actually in your control, but I support your right to express yourself.
Also there’s a paradox in your thinking. You said speech against governments should be protected. So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action. Do we not now have a right to talk about X due to the fact that it’s being censored by a governing force? If not how do you rectify that against your belief speech against governments should be protected.
You said speech against governments should be protected.
Yes
So if we ban speaking about X, that’s government action.
You shouldn’t ban speaking about anything. This is where you missed the point.
Think of it like this. It should be illegal to be a Nazi. It should be legal to discuss Naziism.
It should be illegal to use racial epithets directed at a person in hate, but it should be legal to say and talk about those words.
It’s called contextual nuance, and until you have a solid grasp of it you won’t be able to make accurate determinations.
Being pronazi in your system would be speaking against the government.
No, being pro nazi is not against the government, it’s against the rights of other people. You really are thick.
deleted by creator
Elaborate, please.
To what end? What are you looking to learn?
Understand.
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship.
Can you elaborate on that, please?
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
You argue that the principle of the paradox of tolerance can be subverted to push censorship
The comment you responded to was an observation not an argument.
Why? How? In what fashion? In what way does it concern you?
I’m sorry man but I really don’t have the patiences to write a thesis about this especially since I don’t think what I wrote is deep, or complicated to understand. There are literally people responding to my initial comment justifying censoring religion. You can also search Lemmy for “paradox of tolerance” and you will find countless examples of what I’m talking about if you are genuinely interested.
The problem is that people label everything and everyone “Nazi” or “fascist” these days and with that they justify not tolerating any type of experience or opinion they find uncomfortable.
This leads to basically ignoring a whole bunch of people. But their problems won’t stop simply because you ignore them. Instead you now have people who were on the verge to vote right wing, now definitely voting right wing because they feel the left ignores their problems (which is true).
I don’t think that’s “the problem.” There’s been a global resurgence of actual fascism over the last 20 years. Nationalistic, racist, xenophobic, dictatorially structured, scapegoatism, corporatist, all the boxes checked. It’s been my experience people complaining about the term being “watered down” have dipped their own toe too much in that pool, i.e., they think some elements of it are excusable, sympathize with the actual fascist figures, and hence rush to their defense.
Fascism never caught on anywhere with the public in any country because the whole population was all suddenly cartoon villains. The public got sold a belief system that was appealing to them, that made sense to them, that’s how they fell for it. They’d put in elements of truth into what they were saying, or appeal to basic grievances that the population had.
Or perhaps some people aren’t fascist when they are angry about the communication problems with refugees, for example . Perhaps they are just simple minded, a bit stupid, politically uninterested, whatever.
These people will always exist. They don’t go away when we hate them a lot. Or when we label them as fascist in some kind of Gotcha moment.
A practical solution would be to deal with their problems. Which can easily be done if you are willing to pay a bit of money for community centers etc., which could help with communication and integration tremendously.
It’s a mislead interpretation of what tolerance means that makes people wilfully blind to these issues. They will even risk having a party like the AFD growing in seats for this.
Understanding any problem is a crucial condition for solving it. That includes accurately understanding and characterizing what’s going on. The goal isn’t to name-call people sucked into a fascist movement, it’s to not bury our heads in the sand and pretend fascism isn’t making a huge comeback. That includes actually being able to explain to these people the nature and structure of a fascist movement so they can understand how they’ve been duped.
Thank fuck someone reasonable.
Yes the term is 1000000% watered down and means nothing anymore, it’s lost all the terrible insult it used to carry.
But the right’s problems are things like “black people exist” or “trans people exist”, or really just a bunch of variants of that for different people they hate. The Nazi comparison isn’t invalid, and there’s absolutely no reason for the left to entertain their problems as legitimate.
No it’s not. I mean for example people who live next to a refugee home and asked for help to deal with the problems that came with it. Just really boring problems that could have been actually resolved. Like people dumping their trash on the streets, ignoring driving rules, minors stealing in corner shops, stuff like that.
In these neighbourhoods it could have been prevented that the people don’t want more refugees or even vote for AFD. But instead, when people mentioned these issues, they were called racists or Nazis. Because it was uncomfortable to talk about it and everyone wanted to seem extra tolerant.
I wonder if people still think it was worth it to ignore these complaints as petty. That behaviour has antagonized a bunch of people from the cause. Only for the short gratification of a holier than thou attitude.
“minors stealing in corner shops” isn’t an actual problem, it’s perfectly normal.
That is not generalizing at all. /s There are a lot of people on the right side of the spectrum, some are also compassionate and tolerant
Since it’s a spectrum, polarising means ignoring them and forcing them to decide among 2 poles, and guess what will happen?
You just generalized a huge side of the political spectrum as simple minded racists. Then you said that for that reason, their problems don’t matter.
Don’t you see a problem with that?
Their problems are self inflicted, there’s a difference.
If twelve people sit at a table with a Nazi, you have thirteen Nazis
This is such a stupid perspective because it’s literally just guilt by association. No, sitting down with someone with vile views does not make you endorse, condone, or otherwise suppoer those vile views.
For those that haven’t seen it, the speech in Team America discusses adjacent nuances of this in the most eloquent and poetic way possible.
Thatms why I always say that i’m intolerrant towards intolerrant people
That’s not what Popper is talking about. He’s talking about maintaining the option to be intolerant of the act of intolerance, not of people.
There’s only two types of people I cant stand…
