
Paradox of tolerance - onetimemanytime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
======
weberc2
While I think this is true in some strict sense, I see a lot of people cite
this as an excuse for intolerance against various groups. If a person can
convince themselves that a group or person is intolerant, then the target
deserves [unlimited] intolerance. And with a moral license like that, the
standard for what constitutes “tolerance” basically vanishes. “Intolerance”
becomes a property of groups we (especially people with powerful platforms
like journalists and academics) already dislike.

~~~
danharaj
It's already the case that you can ascribe any quality to any group by fiat
and so therefore any criteria for being intolerant can be abused in the way
that you say. There is nothing you can do to preclude dishonesty and
sophistry.

~~~
weberc2
I don’t know; we didn’t used to have such a problem with dishonesty and
sophestry. Integrity and morality generally was sort of rewarded with social
currency, but that was considered old-fashioned and we did away with it. It
wasn’t a perfect system, but I think we may have taken a wrong turn.

~~~
danharaj
I'm pretty sure _Plato_ had been complaining about this stuff. I suppose we
didn't use to have those problens before civilization became a thing.

~~~
weberc2
To be clear, I wasn't arguing that never before nor anywhere in the world was
there ever issues with sophistry and dishonesty. Plato didn't live in America
in the 1990s and 2000s.

------
daenz
It's funny that this paradox can be used to justify extremism on both sides:

left - we're intolerant of unfettered free speech because it leads to
spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance

right - we're intolerant of certain cultures because the proliferation of
those cultures leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of
tolerance

~~~
jonahx
I have no idea why this is being downvoted.

Logically, that both these arguments can be made is a truism. Practically, we
see versions of this on both sides every day.

It doesn't mean that the left and right are both wrong, or both absurd. It
means that this issue can't be settled by principle alone.

------
Mizza
An idea not often discussed around this quote is that tolerance isn't actually
virtuous, and, is perhaps itself a racist/classist/otherwise-exclusionary
idea.

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior (in whose honor I had a day off
of work today) never once called for 'tolerance', the boycotts and sit-ins
were not a demand for tolerance - they were a demand for integration. To
tolerate is to "otherise" \- you are _allowed_ to continue being as your are,
but on the outside. To integrate, you do not require permission, but you do
not continue as you are - both "sides" are transformed by the process.

I think that we should abandon the idea of tolerance as an inherent virtue and
look for pathways for mutually acceptable integration, rather than building
rigid islands of tolerance.

~~~
xvedejas
Is this really something different than / opposed to tolerance? Or just a
stronger state, of tolerance plus integration? I would argue that tolerance is
one necessary part of integration, not some exclusionary alternative.

~~~
Mizza
I think tolerance _alone_ is a "failure" scenario, and should absolutely not
be considered a goal. Tolerance is, quite literally, a ghetto. We allow bad
things to continue in the name of tolerance every day.

I might even go further to say that integration paradoxically _requires_ some
degree of intolerance - the integrated whole should be intolerant of
"negative" aspects of the unintegrated, even if they are things that would be
seen as protection of "positive" tradition/cultural values by those in a
strictly "tolerant" camp on either side.

~~~
xvedejas
Maybe we just need a new word for the phenomenon which prevents tolerance from
progressing towards integration?

~~~
AstralStorm
It's called ignorance. Ignoring the bad sides of any given thing. It implies
being unreasonable - ignoring good reasons to not tolerate a given behavior.

Of course then there's camel nose/slippery slope fallacy so liked by
intolerant. It is best to ask for evidence.

------
umvi
> Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary
> to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people
> to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make
> it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

\-- Mosiah 29:26

It's not a paradox, it's just how democracies work. As long as the voice of
the people are tolerant, it should be okay. You only need to start worrying if
the intolerant are no longer a lesser part of the people and have an ever
growing share of the voice of the people.

The thing I hate most about the "paradox of tolerance" is its ability to be
weaponized to further political goals. All you have to do is re-categorize
what your opponent(s) are doing as "intolerance" such that you can now safely
be intolerant of them. Your opponent is religious? Find some aspect of their
religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now
you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all,
you are only being intolerant of intolerance!

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by
> your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and
> its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance!

While there is a risk that this works in practice, it's not really coherent.
Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the
intolerant.

~~~
jonahx
> Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the
> intolerant.

How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example,
religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views
will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse.
If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that,
also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.

~~~
Digory
"happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse."

This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as
irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior.

Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill
people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an
evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available.

And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of
"force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well
announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.

~~~
jonahx
> This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as
> irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior.

I'd argue that _this_ response neatly captures the flip side of the problem.

To quote my other post:

\---

Both things are true:

\- Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against
itself.

\- Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims.

You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment
and practical considerations.

\---

So yes, you are right that "believing something is wrong does not mean the
adherents are out to kill people or use force against them."

But sometimes it _does_ mean that. You don't get to take the high road until
you address what to do in those situations.

------
amadeuspagel
Almost every position can be framed as a demand for tolerance. I just want to
drive above the speed limit. I'm not hurting anyone. You can drive in whatever
speed you prefer. Everyone who tries to stop me is intolerant.

So implicit in calling someone "intolerant" without qualification is
"intolerant of these things, that I think should be tolerated". This is how "I
can tolerate everything except intolerance" becomes "I can tolerate anything
except the outgroup"[1], that is, those people that have different ideas about
what should and shouldn't be tolerated.

[1] [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anythin...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

~~~
pastor_williams
I think there is definitely a bit of sleight of hand going on in order for
people to describe whatever outgroup they want as intolerant. In the footnote
where he describes the paradox, Popper describes the intolerant's actions as:

1\. being unwilling to engage in rational argument

2\. forbidding their followers from listening to rational argument

3\. teaching their followers to answer rational argument with violence

Usually when I see someone bring up the paradox of tolerance it is because
they do not want to engage in rational argument and instead seek to justify
pre-emptive violence against a person or group that is at most expressing
intolerant opinions.

------
jadell
I forget where I first heard this, but "Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a
suicide pact." As soon as one side has broken the treaty by being intolerant,
they are no longer protected by the treaty. There is no requirement in a
tolerant society to tolerate intolerance.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
That sounds like a rephrasing of the quote, “The constitution isn’t a suicide
pact.”

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact)

 _It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges
that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas
corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements
made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at
various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first
used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in
Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-
Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur
Goldberg._

~~~
jadell
You're right. I seem to have been paraphrasing a blog post[0] I read a few
years ago.

[0] [https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-
precept-1...](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-
precept-1af7007d6376)

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
That was a very interesting read. It occurred to me as I was reading that
“peace” as a moral precept is ostensibly central to Christianity, right down
to not defending yourself. Obviously that doesn’t describe the actual history
of the religion, an probably doesn’t describe any extant group. Any group that
was so unwilling to defend itself was probably destroyed or absorbed centuries
ago.

His descriptions really resonated with me, especially as regards the usual
framing of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel, so the usual rhetoric
goes, is much more powerful than Hamas or the PLO, so they shouldn’t respond
using that power. In essence they should suffer a death by a thousand cuts,
because of how it makes people _feel_ to see a weaker group lose to a stronger
one. Of course it’s also a convenient bludgeon to rely on schoolyard logic to
try and restrict people, groups, or nations from defending themselves.

------
hprotagonist
_In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My
freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the
other fellow’s nose doesn’t begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the
religionists would have it._

\-- Arthur Garfield Hays, "Democracy Works" (1939)

In a very Russell's Teapot way, it's fairly trivial to blow up absolute
statements by recursing. This doesn't say much about the content of the idea,
per se.

~~~
claudiawerner
An interesting take on the idea expressed in your quote is Steven Smith's
paper "The Hollowness of the Harm Principle"[0]; in it, he argues that the
harm principle is regarded as so powerful because it seems to be _just_
intuition - when a teacher on the schoolyard tells us "your freedom to swing
your arm stops where Billy's nose begins" seems just such obvious common
sense. However this can't be used for a justification for the harm principle,
because as it turns out defining harm is the real issue. Smith argues that the
harm principle is "hollow" \- it is used as a vessel to carry the content of
our ideas no matter what they are - so long as we can say they're harmful.
Smith uses the example of someone who can be said to experience "harm" _simply
by knowing_ that someone is watching pornography, for instance. Smith actually
takes up J.S. Mill himself - on utilitarian conceptions, what these anti-
pornography people experience really can be said to be meaningfully harm.

The quote dosen't get to the point that law isn't (or usually isn't) about
policing thoughts, even as the "religionists" would have it, it's about
preventing action, and it is of course no secret that speech really can be
harmful - assault, child pornography and threats, for instance - or to take it
to the extreme, when I defraud someone's bank account online, aren't I just
sending messages to the web server? Surely to stop me would infringe on my
right to free speech, no?

>Richard Arneson observes that “emotional reactions to what one’s neighbors
and fellow citizens are doing can be powerful and can be virtually unavoidable
for persons who have not detached themselves from all personal concern for the
quality of life in their community.” Arneson suggests that “we should think of
citizens who would be appalled at the thought of living in a community that
tolerates Roman-style gladiatorial spectacles as harmed by the bareknowledge
that such events are occurring...”

[0]
[https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102...](https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=lwps_public)

~~~
hprotagonist
To pithily recapitulate personalism (and what an appropriate day for it, too),
I'm fond of this exchange in _Carpe Jugulum_ as a rough heuristic for what
constitutes harm:

 _There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of
sin, for example,” said Oats. “And what do they think? Against it, are they?”
said Granny Weatherwax.

“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so
many shades of gray.”

“Nope.”

“Pardon?”

“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know
that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including
yourself. That’s what sin is.

“It’s a lot more complicated than that . . .”

“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that,
they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as
things, that’s where it starts.”

“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes . . .”

“But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . ” _

~~~
claudiawerner
What a wonderfully Kantian exchange, thank you for sharing that. Even if what
she says is true, though it seems that there are instance of treating people
as objects which some (most?) people do not consider to be harmful, at least
in this society - employing someone under a wage, for instance (covered by
Frederic Lordon in his great book on Marx and Spinoza) or pornography which
some commentators deem to be identical to the objectification of the people it
portrays (particularly women). Ironically, though, many thins which are
harmful actually depend on recognizing (thinking) of people as human, and then
denying that humanity - there must be something to deny. An insult comparing
someone to dirt is only ever said because they recognize firstly that the
person _isn 't_ dirt - and that's why it's effective. The principle is same
with objectification. In pornography, for example, it's only appealing because
the viewers know on some level that the people portrayed are more than
objects, and the degradation they experience is part of the show, precisely
what makes it so titillating.

~~~
hprotagonist
I was thinking more of Martin Buber. What little I recall of Kant right now is
probably on point, though -- as i recall, he was on board with "humans have
intrinsic worth".

"treating people as things" doesn't necessarily mean that you believe that
people _are_ things -- as you note, a willful blurring of that line in the
knowledge (even subliminal knowledge) that you're acting in bad faith is,
perhaps, where "it" starts in the first place.

To your examples: Employing people does not necessarily constitute treating
them as things; many sharp critiques of the labor market basically center
around the idea that treating your employees as things is both unnecessary and
harmful.

I don't necessarily agree that pornography is obligate depersonalization --
c.f. The Stranger's HUMP fest, for example, which seems pretty person-ful to
me.

~~~
claudiawerner
With regards to employment, I see there being a continual trend towards making
people as fungible as money when it comes to running an efficient business,
this fungibility is predicted by the fact that when it comes to money, a form
of wealth in capitalist society, labour is its source, and the most "rational"
decisions thrift-wise are made with regard to only labour in abstract rather
than concrete form. The theory of commodity fethishism plays a role in this
too - but yes, in these theories the labour is objectified but the worker is
not. As much as it is not necessary to treat the worker as a human as opposed
to a machine you turn on during the time you are allowed to rent it, the
necessity can often become quickly apparent even to the most sympathetic
employer[0].

I think the point with porn is similar to the previous one, in the sense that
porn which resists commodification is often the sort in which the people
portrayed are doing it for their own sake as much as they are some kind of
artistry. The critique of pornography is framed around porn defined as a kind
of inequality while the rest could be better termed erotica. I don't
personally think the distinction holds up to much scrutiny (there's half on an
entry in SEP going over this issue) but it's reasonable to say that
objectification is common in industrial pornography in particular - which
despite its diversity of themes tend to boil down to this rather simple idea.

[0] "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and
the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted
glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the
personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-
relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the
economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can
less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose
creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself
above them." (Karl Marx, preface to the first German edition of Capital)

------
jancsika
I don't see the paradox.

If intolerant speech turns into violence, extant rule of law gets triggered. I
believe most countries have conspiracy laws to deal with groups that plan out
a path from speech to violent destruction. So unless this is a "bootstrapping"
thought experiment, I don't see the problem.

On the other hand if intolerant speech doesn't generate violence, then the
speech should not and cannot be curtailed without being unconstitutional-- at
least in the U.S.

Now, think of the common modern case which does an end run around what I've
said. That is-- large sums of money paying for a) public relations to
manipulate the public into voting/acting against their own interests, and b)
using the resulting power to further corrupt the democratic process.

Where does _intolerance_ come into play in that scenario? AFAICT not at all.

Now suppose society believes the paradox of tolerance is a thing. They will
attempt to use intolerance as a kind of "emergency tool" to combat what they
perceive to be an anti-democratic PR manipulation campaign. But the PR
manipulation campaign _already beat them once_ \-- otherwise the democratic
process wouldn't have gotten corrupted. It's like playing a chess game against
a team of 10 grandmasters who corner you, and then you agree to let them add
ten queens to their side if you can add one to your side.

So a) I don't see the paradox, b) anti-democratic forces don't need
intolerance to prevail, and c) introducing intolerance into the defense of
democracy gives the enemies of freedom a force multiplier.

Edit: clarification

------
jawns
Cornell law professor Robert Hockett argues that "to tolerate" and "to not
tolerate" are infinitives (verb forms) that require a direct object to make
any real sense.

Some infinitives don't need a direct object — like "to dance" or "to sigh."

Other infinitives do — like "to hit" and "to give." No one simply gives in the
abstract. They always give something.

Likewise, Hockett argues, no one simply tolerates in the abstract. They always
tolerate (or don't tolerate) something.

A consequence of Hockett's way of speaking about tolerance is that no one can
ever really be said to be "tolerant" or "intolerant" generally — that is,
without any qualifiers. They can be tolerant of this, they can be tolerant of
that, but they can't simply be tolerant. Indeed, the only direct object they
can't be tolerant of is "everything" — which would mean the same as being
tolerant with no direct object, which would encompass intolerance, which would
be paradoxical.

Oh, sure there might be some people who are intolerant of just about
everything ... but even "just about everything" constitutes a direct object,
if a broad one.

As long as it's "just about everything" and not "everything" (which would
encompass intolerance itself), then there is no paradox.

\---

Catholic archbishop Fulton Sheen on the false understanding of tolerance that
permeates our culture, from his 1932 book:

"There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as
the subject of tolerance and intolerance.

"Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be
synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be
undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness.

"This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally
different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles.
Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.

"We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant
about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring,
because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the
error, because Truth is not our making, but God's."

------
paulddraper
I've seen this many times, but I've never really bought it.

I will draw an analogy: "The Paradox of Democracy".

\---

"In order to maintain a democratic society, the society must prevent
undemocratic members from voting.

"Unlimited democracy must lead to the disappearance of democracy. If we extend
unlimited democracy even to those who are undemocratic, if we are not prepared
to defend a democratic society against the onslaught of the undemocratic, then
the democrats will be destroyed, and democracy with them."

\---

This is in fact, what many have believed for centuries -- that of evils of
populism will overwhelm democracy egalitarianism.

I understand the view, but on the balance, I believe it to more false than
true.

~~~
zaarn
It's implemented; in germany we call it "Defensive Demokratie" (defensive
democracy); a democracy with the institutions to defend it from itself to
ensure that democracy continues. It's a product of post-WW2 germany, so it's
quite understandable on the why of it's existence.

------
bjt2n3904
The root word of tolerance is toler -- to endure.

The dictionary definition is a bit different, to accept.

The "working definition" goes even further, to affirm.

Those who do not affirm my beliefs are therefore, intolerant, and we can purge
them from society.

~~~
Fellshard
Pure post-modernism, distilled.

------
zaarn
Nietzsche touched somewhat on the paradox of tolerance with the last men; a
society in which everyone is pacifist, living comfortable. Conflict and
challenges have been eliminated. Individuals are tired of life, take no risks.
A life where no intolerant people exist.

Suffering is necessary for life, he argues ("That which does not kill me makes
me stronger") and that likely includes the tolerance we extend to others.

How much suffering should society endure by intolerant members to ensure it
grows into something better? A difficult question (there is probably no
answer).

IMO some intolerant individuals, must exist in society for society to progress
and grow, to drive progress for the sake of leaving the intolerant behind and
to show us a mirror of our worst selves and a starting line we must grow
distant to.

~~~
james_s_tayler
I guess the meta consideration for Nietzches world is that it also must be
that case that everyone tolerates that world and that no one is intolerant of
it, because if any individual is intolerant of that particular world and that
particular life they will chose not to live it and break that world.

What I take from this is that there is just an endless dialectical loop that
will play out ad infinitum where one group will vie for power over another and
at some point succeed and they in turn will have the same thing happen to
them.

~~~
zaarn
Possibly, yes. The senseless up and down of society has, however, driven
humanity to land on the moon, so I guess it's good enough to keep us going.

So as long as it keeps going ad infinitum, that's also progress; constant
change.

~~~
james_s_tayler
I disagree it's progress. I think it is just constant change. I also think
it's likely unavoidable, so I don't lament about it too much.

Actually when I read Why Nations Fail was the first time I realised that
things don't only go in the direction of progress and that sometimes all the
progress a society has made is erased and things revert. That got me to
consider that it will happen to us at some point too.

Actually, though this is an interesting point to philosophise on and I find
Nietzsche a fun thinker. I guess what you are alluding to saying that this
endless loop is always driving forward progress (or maybe your distinction is
that it is always progressing and that isn't necessarily a value judgement on
whether the 'progress' is good or bad, just that the situation is always
becoming different), is that perhaps and I think that in some way this is the
case that our actions and the record of it sort of acts like a ratchet. That
is, it turns one way and once it turns that way it doesn't turn back the other
way. That's analagous to 'some things can't be unseen' I suppose. Even if it's
all reset you can't negate how far we did come this time.

~~~
zaarn
>or maybe your distinction is that it is always progressing and that isn't
necessarily a value judgement on whether the 'progress' is good or bad, just
that the situation is always becoming different

That would be part of it, not all progress is what we think of as good but
it's progress, evolution of the status quo.

The ratchet analogy also fits IMO.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Maximizing tolerance is a poor moral framework. All societies and people
differentiate behavior last between tolerable and intolerable. As a culture,
there is pretty much universal agreement that murder is intolerable.

There are however, differences between societies as to what is considered
tolerable. The US considers making fun of deities tolerable, while in other
societies blasphemy is intolerable and punishable by death.

Toleration can also evolve. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act,
explicit racial discrimation and segregation was considered tolerable. With
the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we have signaled that that behavior is
intolerable.

In addition, toleration has a pragmatic aspect. You may believe a behavior to
be wrong, but it is not worth going to all out war over. For example, prior to
the Treaty of Westphalia, Catholic principalities thought that their
Protestant counterparts were intolerable and vice versa. However, after the 30
years war, while both Catholics and Protestants may not have liked each other,
but decided that religious war between states was not worth it.

At the extreme end, toleration is deciding what behaviors that you do not
approve of are worth killing and being killed over, and which are not. Less
extreme are deciding which behaviors you do not approve of are worth losing
family, friendship, or business over.

Toleration is by definition the tension between moral purity and
inclusiveness. If we view it like then we can more logically talk about where
the line between tolerable and intolerable should be, rather than both side
putting forward sophist arguments why their opponent is intolerant and thus
should not be tolerated.

------
iamnothere
Popper's thought experiment is one of those neat little packaged concepts that
people hear about and say "oh, right" and nod along with without really
questioning its fundamental premise.

From a practical standpoint, nobody reasonable would say that a society must
be always tolerant to everyone, all the time. All tolerance has a limit in the
real world. Furthermore, a society can certainly accept a modest level of
intolerance before it starts to encounter serious problems. Little examples of
intolerance happen every day, in every city and country in the world, and yet
we keep shuffling along.

Everyone also tends to ignore this part of his quote: "In this formulation, I
do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of
intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument
and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be
unwise."

Popper follows this by saying that society must claim the right to suppress
intolerance if it becomes a serious danger, but he is arguing against a
strawman. Almost everyone would agree with this.

------
dooglius
It is a mistake to treat tolerance as a binary quantity (which is hinted at in
the use of the phrase "unlimited tolerance"). Rather, the appropriate question
to ask is, what degree of intolerance should be given to which actions, in
order to form a high-tolerance stable equilibrium?

------
cabaalis
> 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.

This works until group A decides that group B is indeed acting as described
above, and moves to destroy them. It's just an application of paranoia, and
being an American I see it from both left and right.

------
claudiawerner
The paradox of tolerance (which some say isn't truly a paradox but I think
that's beside the point of its content) was supported by Karl Popper, famously
a defender of what he termed "the open society" \- but interestingly a much
more aggressive and partisan option was put forward by an intellecutal rival
to whom he was almost completely opposed - Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse's essay is
a good read, whether you agree with it or not, for a different take on the
issue at the height of what Marcuse saw as widespread dulling of our critical
faculties.

J.S. Mill's democracy relies on the populace being informed - any attempt to
block the populace being informed is therefore a threat to democracy. If
democracy is blocked, democratic means cannot be used to solve the problem.
Hence, Marcuse argues, we might have to resort to _apparently undemocratic_
means to resolve such a conflict.[0]

[0]
[https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetol...](https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm)

~~~
Nomentatus
I think you're getting downvoted 'cause you've taken Paradox to imply
contradiction or impossibility - which it doesn't (merely the appearance or
illusion of impossibility.)

~~~
claudiawerner
I didn't really want to comment on what 'paradox' meant - I really don't think
it's important, whether it's a true paradox or not doesn't matter to what the
concept is trying to say. I wish it wasn't named "paradox" such that people
could stop worrying about the naming and start talking about the concept it
proposes instead.

~~~
Nomentatus
I agree, so it's a shame your comment was misleading re the meaning of
"Paradox"; I think everyone leapt on that error, I doubt they disagree re
Marcuse.

------
bottle
If the definition of tolerant society S is one where everyone is tolerant of
one another, then by definition it can't include anyone who's intolerant of at
least one person in S. The intolerant person simply doesn't belong in S.

------
vivekd
I think this just shows that tolerance is a self defeating concept. Perhaps
the celebration of tolerance should be replaced with celebration of other
virtues like humility, empathy, patience, understanding and honest debate in
search of truth. Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view
that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally
tolerated.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are
> no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated.

That's what the intolerant say to make tolerance seem absurd. All that
tolerance is about is the recognition that there are lots of different ways to
live that are compatible with the same, real, "ultimate truths", and that just
being different doesn't mean you are wrong. Interpreting that to mean that
there is no right and wrong is simply a straw man.

~~~
vivekd
I think there's a conflation going on here between tolerance of ideas and
tolerance of people. My statement was regarding tolerance of ideas, you're
talking about tolerance of people.

So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same
time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack
those ideas.

So applying this to real world example, my culture has the caste system which
some experts say has been as damaging for the lower caste individuals as
slavery has been for people in the West. Demanding tolerance of the caste
system because we should 'tolerate different ways of living' is absurd. It is
a bad idea and should be challenged. I see nothing wrong with being intolerant
of caste systems. This is a case where there is obvious truth vs untruth - ie.
the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to
be false. Calling for intolerance of this untrue belief is in no way the same
thing as calling for intolerance of or mistreatment of Indians or Hindu
people.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the
> same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to
> attack those ideas.

Yes. But the point is that it should be attacked because it is a bad idea, not
because it is a different idea. There is no need for tolerance to be limitless
in order to be considered tolerance, just as there is no need for democracy to
accept the election of a dictator in order to be considered a democracy.

> I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that you are intolerant, the same way that
attempts to assassinate (democratically elected) Hitler were not anti-
democratic. It is neither necessary nor helpful to define those terms in such
a way that they are self-defeating, there is a useful concept there that can
sensibly be labeled "tolerance" that encompasses only the non-self-defeating
aspects of tolerance.

> ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now
> know to be false

I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be
false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically
irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that
it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, but it's usually
better to avoid an unnecessary burden of proof ;-)

~~~
vivekd
>I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be
false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically
irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that
it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs,

But that's just the point, if reincarnation is a valid belief, then the caste
system is valid as well. The two justify each other. The caste system posits
that your social status (caste) in this life is a result of your actions in
the previous life. It's based on the theory of reincarnation that you will be
born again and your next life will be determined by your actions in this one.

Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of
tolerance. Under any fair standandard it's properly classified as wrong. There
is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death. No
rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. It is mere
superstition. We should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs
can and do cause harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system.

I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely
unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad ideas
to persist. And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as
valid as scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a
nihilistic denial of truth.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of
> tolerance.

No, it is unfalsifiable because there is no way to prove it wrong even if it
is wrong, that is the definition of unfalsifiability, and has absolutely
nothing to do with tolerance.

> There is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death.
> No rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. We
> should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs can and do cause
> harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system.

I agree with all of that. But none of that gets you to "and therefore, this is
false". The position that it is false is equally unsupported by evidence, and
hence that no rational person should believe it does apply to that claim as
well.

> I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely
> unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad
> ideas to persist.

Except you don't know it to be wrong, and making that unsubstantiated claim
unnecessarily puts you in a weaker position, because a believer will in many
cases notice that your position is just as unsubstantiated as theirs and say
things like "but your position also requires faith!", which is indeed correct,
and thus allows them to defend their position against your argument.

The idea of reincarnation is not "merely unfalsifiable", it is unfalsifiable.
It is irrational to believe unfalsifiable claims. When you try to argue that
their position is wrong, you are taking on a burden of proof that you simply
aren't responsible for and that you also cannot meet. You are essentially
shifting the topic in their favour: The question is whether they know that
reincarnation is real, and instead of showing that they don't know that, you
shift the discussion to whether you know that reincarnation is not real.
Whether you know that reincarnation is not real is completely irrelevant to
the question at hand. They don't know what they are claiming to know, and that
is why their position is irrational and not worth consideration.

If anything, the idea that you have to disprove all unsubstantiated,
unfalsifiable bullshit before it should be considered irrational nonsense is
what allows those ideas to persist, because it erects a barrier that is
impossible to overcome. Showing that a claim is unsubstantiated and/or
unfalsifiable should be enough to undermine the credibilitiy of any such
claim.

> And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as valid as
> scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a nihilistic
> denial of truth.

And you know why? Because one requirement for a belief to be considered
scientific is that is has to be falsifiable. Being unfalsifiable disqualifies
any claim from being considered scientific.

------
ivanhoe
If the law is the "intolerance" of society to those who behave anti-social,
then yes it's true. But so many nowadays try to justify their own radical
ideas by citing this...

------
zozbot123
> Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against
> itself.

> Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims.

If tolerance _and_ the paradox of tolerance can both be weaponized equally
easily, what does this make of the recommendation for _not_ being "tolerant of
the intolerant"? Isn't it simply a case of "damned if you do, damned if you
don't"?

