Is "The Paradox of Tolerance" an actual paradox?

[RockVolnutt]

This could easily devolve into "reee dumb people on social media" but I'm more interested in the logical consistency of the concept. It comes from Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and the gist of it is "Tolerating intolerant people will lead to the destruction of tolerance therefore it is essential to be intolerant towards the intolerant". Now Popper doesn't support silencing the intolerant and suggests rational debate and public opinion keeping them in check, unlike some who quote him, but I'm confused on where the paradox is. I only see a contradiction if you assume "We tolerate EVERYONE" as opposed to a more accurate "We tolerate anyone who does not force their beliefs onto others".

Am I missing something here or is Popper's paradox not an actual paradox?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

This could easily devolve into "reee dumb people on social media" but I'm more interested in the logical consistency of the concept. It comes from Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and the gist of it is "Tolerating intolerant people will lead to the destruction of tolerance therefore it is essential to be intolerant towards the intolerant". Now Popper doesn't support silencing the intolerant and suggests rational debate and public opinion keeping them in check, unlike some who quote him, but I'm confused on where the paradox is. I only see a contradiction if you assume "We tolerate EVERYONE" as opposed to a more accurate "We tolerate anyone who does not force their beliefs onto others".

Am I missing something here or is Popper's paradox not an actual paradox?

In order to have a society where no one forces their beliefs onto others, you must force everyone to live according to the belief that you should not force your beliefs on others. That's the essence of the paradox.

 

[AF 802]

I'm guessing you brought this up because of that Ben Garrison edit of the Paradox of Tolerance comic I sent on Discord the other day.

I just see it as an excuse for anarchist LARPers just to be narcissistic assholes so they can do whatever they want and not face consequences. If you believe that, you're retarded.

 

[RockVolnutt]

In order to have a society where no one forces their beliefs onto others, you must force everyone to live according to the belief that you should not force your beliefs on others. That's the essence of the paradox.

Do you? That kinda assumes everyone living in society wants to force their belief onto others and are only kept in check by the powers that be. If the society already agrees that they don't want people who force their belief onto others, there isn't really a contradiction with them wanting anyone who does out. That would be the belief the society is founded on and the default state.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

No, it's not a paradox because it's merely a notation of the self-defeating nature of tolerance; calling it a "paradox" is like saying fire is a paradox because it burns itself out.
The label is legerdemain on Popper's part: he wants tolerance to be good, but recognizes that it eats itself, so he comes up with a local equivalent of the "noble lie" to support his position. The alternative, of course, is that if your highest value is self-defeating, maybe get a new highest value instead of inventing epicycles to prop it up.

 

[ICametoLurk]

People only go to extremes when shit isn't working. If you want people to not go Commie or Nazi then make sure that shit works.

 

[crocodilian]

Popper was Jewish and a Marxist. Anything he's ever said can be dismissed as subversive garbage immediately because of this. If that doesn't convince you, Andrew Dobson loves the guy, as does most of the modern left. His name became a perpetual echo after Richard Spencer and his pudgy polo-wearing army started waving tiki torches around America, endlessly espoused by people who have never read his work.

Now Popper doesn't support silencing the intolerant and suggests rational debate and public opinion keeping them in check, unlike some who quote him,

People love misquoting the man as saying "if we give the nazis free speech they'll outlaw ours!", but they conveniently forget this direct quote:

Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.

Which is tantamount to saying "we should outlaw everyone we disagree with, or they'll outlaw us. Yes we're doing the exact crime we're fear-mongering against, but it's okay because we're right!" Most websites helpfully omit that particular part of the quote, presumably because anyone with two brain cells would conclude that it's blatant hypocrisy and goes against everything the United States stands for.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Popper was Jewish and a Marxist. Anything he's ever said can be dismissed as subversive garbage immediately because of this.

The modern form of the scientific method is based on Popper's work. The man was the major source of the idea that theory in science should stand or fall based on evidence. I suppose, of course, this is also subversive bullshit.

 

[дядя Боря]

"tolerating" is a key word here. What does it mean by not tolerating?

The way I see it, modern tolerance is more of blind acceptance rather than persecution and harm. At least this is what intolerance has been interpreted as in modern days. It's not about violence necessarily, just accepting dumb ideas, like a zombie, a brainwashing routine when common sense is suspended.

One example is AOC. Tolerance toward that dumb cunt would be NOT make fun of her and actually seriously consider all the verbal diarhea that comes out of her pie hole.

 

[crocodilian]

The modern form of the scientific method is based on Popper's work. The man was the major source of the idea that theory in science should stand or fall based on evidence. I suppose, of course, this is also subversive bullshit.

"Critical rationalism" is sociologist hokum. It's not "the modern form of the scientific method" in any respect, and linking to a shitty Wikipedia page where the only citations are Popper's own books won't convince anyone otherwise.

 

[RockVolnutt]

no it doesn't. nobody ever talked about everyone wanting to impose their beliefs on others. just a few, and that includes the powers that be (which are currently violently imposing their beliefs - including 'tolerance' - upon society at large)

In order to have a society where no one forces their beliefs onto others, you must force everyone to live according to the belief that you should not force your beliefs on others. That's the essence of the paradox.

I was talking about this.

 

[Clop]

It's kind of like the freedom "paradox," you're free to live your life as you choose as long as it doesn't infringe on others' freedom. It's not literally total freedom, it's just common sense, just like tolerating people who tolerate other people is common sense.

It's only a paradox if you lack common sense and insist on everything being carved in stone and followed to the letter.

I would prefer to call this one - in all examples - the smartarse paradox. If you like living in a tolerating society, you tolerate shit like everyone else. You don't start preaching to others that they have to tolerate you being a dipshit because otherwise they're hypocrites.

 

[Slap47]

Trying to censor ideas just puts those ideas on the side of free speech.

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

A good example would be the Nazis oddly enough. The Nazis were targeted by the Wiemar governments hate speech laws and became the popular-counter culture as a result.

The opposition party is always the on side of free expression... until they get power.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

To enforce a level of tolerance a line has to be set in the sand. It is not really a paradox in my opinion but a shortsighted or misapplied concept. Some people think tolerance implicates being tolerant to all and not having any set of standards, but the reality is not having standards is not really tolerance.

I was talking about this.

Personally, you don't have to force tolerance on people to accept that notion that others shouldn't force their beliefs onto others. You just have to have a middle line option (IE a defense option ) for those being or having their beliefs forced onto them by others. In a sense any country that allows self-defense, or weapons can create a "polite society" that will eventually learn not to try to pressure other people lest they face the end of said gun or other weapon.

Trying to enforce a concept of "Don't enforce your beliefs on others" will never work, as even in societies that express major tolerance we see the intolerant at work. The only thing one must fear in such a concept is people becoming complacent with intolerance and allowing the forcing without allowing the group/people/person having ideas forced on them to retaliate or defend themselves from said forcing.

Tolerance by definition talks about objective views of fairness and accepting of beliefs. The objective view should stand out to mean it doesn't just mean some random magnitude of acceptance where everything goes. There are limits. Just like capitalism. We limit capitalism in the same concept because if we had "True free markets." That would make sexual slavery acceptable and other such commodities acceptable on the free market. Hence capitalism is meant ot have some restrictions or regulations but is still considered a "free market." when done like such.

 

[Foxxo]

Studies found that the people who push tolerance the most don't have to exhibit it on a daily basis. Those who suddenly find themselves living near abnormal stuff grow to lose their tolerance rather quickly, though they won't change their public stances on the issues.

 

[ICametoLurk]

Trying to censor ideas just puts those ideas on the side of free speech.



A good example would be the Nazis oddly enough. The Nazis were targeted by the Wiemar governments hate speech laws and became the popular-counter culture as a result.

The opposition party is always the on side of free expression... until they get power.

When shit isn't working people always go with what is deemed unacceptable. IF the Powers That Be HATE IT then it's good.

 

[Sm0kINHaZefEEliNBlaZEd]

The modern form of the scientific method is based on Popper's work. The man was the major source of the idea that theory in science should stand or fall based on evidence. I suppose, of course, this is also subversive bullshit.

The idea that science should be evidence based was known well before Popper was alive. And his ideal of the scientific method was developed by Peirce, Karl just put his name on it.

 

[Chexxchunk]

Since the far left redefines words as though language were Calvinball, none of this idea means anything in practice except "we have assumed control."

 

[ICametoLurk]

The idea that science should be evidence based was known well before Popper was alive. And his ideal of the scientific method was developed by Peirce, Karl just put his name on it.

So like the other Jewish Marxist that is Einstein.

 

[Recoil]

The decaying quality of life in England, the Netherlands and much of the rest of Europe is evidence enough of what happens when your tolerant society tolerates intolerant people.