HandsomePenguin
76595
1035
42
Still a great lesson all around
Original post: Unlimited tolerance can lead to the extinction of tolerance. https://imgur.com/gallery/8YdkkTH
Feb 23, 2024 6:56 PM
HandsomePenguin
76595
1035
42
Still a great lesson all around
Original post: Unlimited tolerance can lead to the extinction of tolerance. https://imgur.com/gallery/8YdkkTH
Talbotous
Remember kids. Nazis by ideology are a violent people. Their beliefs tell them to do violence against "others". So any acts of violence against a nazi, no matter how "unprovoked" it may seem, is just self defense to various degrees.
2cRaZy2TiReD
Anybody trying to justify their hateful ideology
widiwi
StarSumiaki
graehall
Had someone who used to be a friend tell me this was wrong and nazis aren't really that prevalent. Can't believe I used to trust him
archon325
There are three types of people, 1) Evil people, 2) Good people, and 3) Nice people. Evil people only care about themselves and want to oppress others. Good people care about others, and naturally want to stop Evil people. Nice people want to avoid conflict and think it's rude to call people Evil. Evil people and Nice people get along surprisingly well.
If Good people want to save us from Fascism, they have to be okay with upsetting Nice people.
SpaceGigolo
Ever notice that Punk doesn't really have a Nazi problem anymore? It's cause they kept kicking the shit outta that Nazis that showed up.
NiftyGoblin
Its not free speech if its hate speech. There is a difference.
anarchoFeline
whenever some fucking chud asks me "what happened to the tolerant left?" I tell them "they died in concentration camps, we're the intolerant left"
Bugdaze
That is fucking awesome. Thank you.
CoarseAndSalty
There's no paradox. We're not asking you to tolerate people to tolerate people for their desire to destroy you. We're asking you not to be a bigot. We're just phrasing it like you're not a cunt.
Jonson71
And then we get into the grey areas of defining intolerance. Like, if I'm proposing we kill all the jews, that's intolerance. But if I refuse to vote for public funds going towards sex changes for convicted prisoners (this is just a hypothetical), is that intolerance? What is intolerance? Me deadnaming someone? Me refusing to admit another asian person because our college has enough asians already? Who gets to decide what intolerance is?
KickStartMyHeartHopeItNeverStops
We could say that anyone can be intolerant, as long as they do not take actions to deprive the freedom of others... as long as that freedom of others does not aim to deprive the freedom of yet others... there are no simple answers here. And trying to simplify it into a catchy phrase is absurd.
HandsomePenguin
How about we focus on routing the OBVIOUSLY intolerant first, and then begin making the finer definitions.
SecretAgentSuperBooger
erikleorga
It frustrates me to no end that the 1st Amendment protects their right to free speech, regardless of the message.
JethroTull1
You are excused from America. Have a nice day.
erikleorga
OliverOtter
This isn't a paradox, it's a half-truth. What Popper elided is that the mere presence of an intolerant philosophy doesn't compel people to favor it, and attempting to suppress it doesn't automatically succeed. Do Nazis exist and are you aware of their philosophy? Yes. Are you one? Probably not. Hence, this paradox is bullshit.
KarlPopperAllOverAgain
Good time to comment. Never forget Karl.
Thanksforl
My CPU is overheating right now
keyblader1985
Or put another way, tolerance is a treaty, that all parties must agree to. If you don't agree to be tolerant, other people have no obligation to be tolerant to you.
threelittledwarfs
But.. treaties can't be forced, right?
kibbypie
This is actually one of the clearest ways of simplifying it that I’ve seen. Well done!
ameriki
Hate the haters!
enheru
It's only a paradox if you conflate tolerance of people for unchangeable characteristics and tolerance for beliefs. They are very different.
mondeca
It was never a paradox. Bigotry is the exact thing we're against, so why would our tolerance ever be expected to extend to bigots?
ModernVoodooApostasy
Every time you punch a Nazi, a random person somewhere in the world achieves a knee-buckling orgasm. Sometimes more than one. It's a fact. Try it today!
gablestout
Is THAT why that happened yesterday?
thembitchesbewitches
I would like to thank whoever just punched a nazi. Go ahead, do it again!!!
SleepyHollowAppleTree
Rystefn
I'm not sure this is true. I feel like we need to collect more data about it. Punch a Nazi for science!
gablestout
livurz
PapaUbu
BurlRavenscroft
Poo there are only two things I can’t stand, and one of them is people who are intolerant of other cultures.
svga
who watches the watchmen
DJOldguy
Tolerance is a social contract, not a moral or ethical standard. It is moral to accept and ethical to live tolerant lives, but you are under no obligation to be tolerant of people who are intolerant or would remove your right to be different.
Weraim
Show no tolerance to those who wish to commit genocide and bring violence for the detriment of our world
EllisHobbs
DrankTooMuchMead
All those in favor of ejecting bigots from the protection of free speech?
JethroTull1
Who gets to make the call…you, the taliban, republicans, hippies. This crap is written by people who have never read anything but echo chamber lefty bullshit. Read Voltair.
DrankTooMuchMead
What's your opinion on this?
Skuggen
svga
meh
KuldFyt
Jinxer13
The paradox refers to the idea that you cannot have a maximally tolerant society because that leads to intolerance. It's not something to be solved but something to be recognized. There are many examples. Maximally free speech which includes threats and intimidation reduces freedom. Maximally free market without regulation leads to monopolies, the very opposite of free market. The "paradox" is that regulations and restrictions are necessary for maximizing freedom. Nothing to solve.
KuldFyt
My dude, Karl Popper was an ethnically Jewish (although religiously christian) Austrian who fled to New Zealand in the late 1930's. He wasn't talking about the free market with the paradox of tolerance, he was absolutely talking about Nazis. Also, this solution was not something he missed, and is actually close to his own position on the matter. These blurbs you see about resolving the paradox come about because Popper is often quoted laying out the paradox, but with his own conclusions removed.
Jinxer13
Not sure where you got the idea that i was proposing he was talking about the free market. I explicitly stated that there were examples where the same pattern emerges. 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. That's exactly what would happen in absolute free speech and absolute free market.
Jinxer13
The point of providing these examples is to show that the thingy above that tries to say that the paradox "disappears" is not even needed. It's not a riddle to be solved because there's "paradox" in the name. It's just a fact about the dynamics of freedom allowing power to be oppressive and subsequently lead to lack of freedom, i just showed it's applicable in many aspects.
quade
Tolerance is a social contract, not an ethical or moral behavior. If you violate the contract, you are removed from its protection.
tetondons
I like this. More digestible then when I try to use math to explain it. Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance like -1*-1 = 1.
BrigidtheMechLady
Was just going to comment this. Tolerance as a social construct invalidates this paradox.
haki23
We need a new cartoon to illustrate our new understanding
quade
Best I can do
Tarmaccian
The problem with the "contract" thing is that the hateful will never accept that they broke the contract first. They'll perceive that they've been removed for no valid reason, reinforcing their victimhood narrative. Then they claim their hateful actions are simply done out of a need to defend themselves.
quade
That's why we (as a society) must always hold intolerant people accountable for their actions or words.
Tarmaccian
Exactly… Counter actions with actions, and words with words. The idea of _limited_ tolerance (where, for instance, anti-LGBTQ protesters are still allowed to be present at a Pride parade, but blocked from view by rainbow-clad angels) is much more difficult for the bigots to exploit. They're allowed their place in society… just it's clear that their hate is what puts that place at the bottom.
quade
People can protest all they want; but protesting out of intolerance means their stance is invalid and they no longer have the right to be tolerated.
Tarmaccian
See, be careful with those words… "No longer have the right to be tolerated" is dangerously close to denying a human's authentic existence, which is how bigotry takes root. Instead, focus on what can nullify their intolerance without affecting their humanity: They have the right to speak their opinion, but they do not have the right to have that opinion be heard.
beoluves
Or as I like to say, it's an agreement, not a right.
This gets many people mad.
quade
It doesn't get tolerant people mad.
beoluves
Well, so called tolerant.
beoluves
Surprised nobody understood my comment. Intolerant people calling themselves tolerant will get mad. I'm agreeing here, jeez.
Is the world so bad faith we have to assume everyone's an ass?