Paradox of tolerance
Paradox of tolerance
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
I was talking about the part:
Its not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract.
If Adam is cancelled for being a homophobe, it is within this contract. My question is: Why was Bob cancelled? Has he done or said something? Has he agreed with Adam? Or was there only gossip about his opinion? The reasons for cancelling someone are important. As is causality. Adam and Bob are not functionally identical. Why is Adam a homophobe? Why was Bob cancelled? Maybe the started at the same spot, but here that is not clear.
Another point:
Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him.
He argues they want to cancel him. How does he know that? What are his arguments, was there a thrat? This reads like an unbacked claim, an accusation. If that's the case, then Bob would be in the wrong for false accusation.
You demonstrate my point.
I set up a scenario with two identical people, differing only in the order in which two independent ideas popped into their head. In every other aspect, they are identical. Any question you decide to ask about Bob, the answer is the same for Adam. Any question about Adam, the answer is the same for Bob.
What you are talking about is valid and important. I readily concede that causality plays an important role in all manner of philosophical discussion.
However, I am trying to get you to understand that these issues are not the only important factors present in this paradox. Indeed, the arguments you presented indicating both Adam and Bob are at fault arises not from the causality chain of intolerance begetting intolerance, but from the context that both are homophobes.
To understand my concern, you need to consider the idea of simultaneity: that both sides sincerely and legitimately believe themselves to have been intolerated by the other, and both sincerely and legitimately believe they are thus justified in canceling the other.
We need to move on to Charlie and David. Both are performing intolerant acts against the other. Both believe the other was the first to act, and both believe themselves to be the victim of the other's intolerance. The paradox has no problem with counter-intolerance. Both believe their own acts justified, and the other's to be unjust.
To David, Charlie's acts of intolerance are fascist. To Charlie, David's acts of intolerance are fascist.
Where the causal chain is disputed (And it is always disputed), Popper's Paradox effectively argues that war is better than peace. I do not subscribe to that philosophy.
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.