The paradox of tolerance is real.
Seems like humans have to rediscover this fact every couple of generations, the hard way.
Seems like humans have to rediscover this fact every couple of generations, the hard way.
Finding paradoxes in absolutely-defined frameworks is expected - a concept like "tolerance" can only ever serve as an imperfect heuristic. To proceed beyond its limits, you must judge by other metrics.
The point is that this "Paradox of tolerance" meme is invokable to escalate the aggression of any viewpoint - a paradox in the common (not not A -> A) logic system means anything can be proved.
We don't have a problem with the murderer and his enablers because they were intolerant, but because they committed and encouraged murder.
Can't really discourage the next one at this point unfortunately. People are going to do things like this, they have been for a while and will continue to do so in the future. These ideological extremists will be arguing back and forth forever.
All that said, there is the completely separate question of what our counter-terrorism infrastructure should be doing to identify and neutralize these threats. But that's not so much "discouraging" the next attack as it is attempting to keep the number of attacks to a minimum. Because I can pretty much guarantee, the counter-terrorism guys in NZ, or most other western nations, are not gonna be visiting suspected terrorists for the purposes of having a conversation in the hopes of "discouraging" them.
This is, of course, in _addition_ to other counter-terrorism infrastructure like intelligence gathering, monitoring, security, response, etc. Many of those more well-known systems are intended to identify bad actors and prevent them from doing bad things; understanding bad actors can lead to more methods to prevent regular people from becoming bad actors in the first place.
Here's the thing, people been doing this for literally MILLENNIA now, there is no way to identify everything that will drive extremists to kill. That's the essential problem with that philosophy. Even where you are able to identify the core issue, say for instance the religious divisions in the MidEast region, there is really no way to address the core problem. It's just far easier to engage the extremists, than it is to convince Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, to NOT be Christians, or Jews, or Muslims.
Extremists will just never be placated, and we shouldn't put too much effort into trying, because that gets people killed as well.
I would posit that being tolerant and intolerant to intolerance is not a mutually exclusive stste. You can be both to varying degrees.
In fact, being somewhat intolerant of intolerance is probably a prerequisite to being truly tollerant.
That middle ground is what we need to protect and preserve.
Acting like you must be one of the other is something a clever 5 year old would do.
Popper's definition is quoted in the Wikipedia article:
"""Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — 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. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."""
(It's fine to disagree with Popper about where a good line to draw is; I think Popper's going for "maximum tolerance", and is noting that tolerating 'intolerant = unwilling to engage in rational argument' would reduce tolerance).
I'm still not sure I get it but I think my understanding of a paradox was incorrect.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-parad...
Strictly speaking I think it is a paradox. Where I got stuck is whether tolerance and intolerance are concepts in absolute. I dont think think they are absolute terms and in fact can be used to describe partial states, in other words, they can be used in this form but not [always] result in a logical contradiction which is where the paradox is coming from in this situation.
Citing the "paradox of tolerance" is nothing but a faux intellectual fig leaf for those who want to establish controls on what is allowed to be said.
Okay, here I go: "Modern progressives aren't liberals because freedom of speech is a core tenet of liberalism and therefore they should be treated as a hazard to the liberal movement."
There, I said it; I feel better now. Thank you for your kind invitation.
Where are modern progressives arguing to use state power to make some speech illegal?
The other simply uses speech in response.
You seem to think that critical speech should be less protected that bigoted speech. I’m baffled by that position.
If people went to a certain country and they said "We have freedom from self incrimination, just as the US does; the government is not allowed to force a confession from an alleged criminal. However, the victim and their family or friends may force a confession from the alleged criminal in any way they please.", then those people would undoubtedly say "Your country does not have freedom from self incrimination at all!"
If people went to a certain country and they said "We have freedom of speech, just as the US does; the government is not allowed to suppress or tamper with what an individual says. However, those who disagree with what they said may inflict 'social consequences' on that individual until their lives are ruined.", then people would undoubtedly say ...?
In short, it should be blindingly obvious that freedom of speech includes both protection from government intervention as well as protection from members of the public who seek to inflict harm^H^H^H^H"social consequences" because they disagree with what was said.
It is dismaying that a man of Randall Munroe's intelligence should make such a blatant logical error in his comic. Sadly, it's not even the only error in that comic.
Who is doing the forcing? Is it the state? If so, then I agree with you. If it isn't the state, with all of the force it entails, your argument is irrelevant and invalid.
You seem to be conflating social norms with state power.
We can't lock up an asshole just because they are an asshole, but we sure as shit can refuse to socialize with them. What would you want to be different?
You seek to limit my ability to react to what someone has said?
You want to force me to host nazi comments on my blog?
You want to force me, personally, to provide a platform for hate and bigotry and not chastise bigots?
I can’t call someone an asshole? I can't fire someone because they are an asshole?
It's not.
Tolerance is more like a peace treaty. When someone breaks it, they are no longer protected by it. I've found this post[0] from a few years ago to be a good explanation. Once you look at tolerance this way, the paradox disappears.
[0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...