There's a straightforward way to resolve the paradox of tolerance, IMO. Treat tolerance as a social contract. An intolerant person has explicitly rejected the contract.
Fully agree. Being tolerant is part of the social contract. If you break the rules then why should we play the same game.
I agree. Straightforward and simple. But I don't think I know how to simply explain what a social contract is to someone. Does anyone have a good example of a social contract?
Choose to fit your audience:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
If you deny my right to exist, you forfeit yours
Fuck around and find out
Talk shit, get hit
You forgot one:
In other words, don't do something that you would be upset if someone else did.
This. I'm not sure why others are arguing your point. I guess they don't actually understand what you're saying?
Happens all the time to be honest
Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.
This is a common misconception about the Paradox of Tolerance, and I'm going to reference the person who invented it: Karl Popper in his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies:
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 most 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.
Popper argues that we should tolerate intolerance only up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his position.
The graphic above states that we should not tolerate "movements" which preach "intolerance." This is a subjective standard. I think Islam preaches intolerance. By this standard, I would be justified in banning all Muslims from immigrating to Denmark. This is why Popper used the much clearer standard of physical violence. Any modern society must tolerate disagreement - including "intolerant" disagreement. We resolve that intolerance at the ballot box. We cannot allow physical violence. No, someone saying mean words is not physical violence.
But in Denmark it is illegal to preach intolerance, like racism and nazism.
Yes, we don't protect free speech in Denmark. However we do not ban people who subscribe to intolerant ideologies, like Islam.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force
He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it's refusing rational argument that's a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Further, if you finish the paragraph it becomes clear that the opening statement is anything but a misunderstanding:
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
You don't have to agree with him, you can be partial to rawles, but popper was not vague.
He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it’s refusing rational argument that’s a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Not just that. He also very clearly requires there to be the incitement to physical violence:
and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
I agree with the end of the paragraph. His definition of intolerance includes the incitement to violence, and what he argues follows logically.
I disagree with this assessment of the text - assuming it's correct, I'm not familiar with the source.
What this extract is saying imo is as long as it's possible to effectively keep in check and counter intolerance with argument and public opinion, suppression is unwise.
But, tolerance should reserve the right to suppress intolerance before it becomes violent, specifically when intolerance acts in bad faith and refuses to participate in logical argument or debate, and instead denounces argument entirely.
So the threshold is not violence itself, but one example of what "may" lead to violence.
Just my 2¢ on the text (not my opinion on the topic).
There is no way to reconcile your interpretation with the actual text:
and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
A preemptive strike is neither stated nor implied by Popper. I find that a dangerous proposition for a democratic nation. It would justify any and all manner of violence based on nothing and anything but the subjective and active imaginations of the politically inclined.
I've re-read it and still kindly and respectfully disagree about the meaning of that excerpt in isolation. Whatever the implications of this interpretation are, I have no idea because I'm not familiar with the work (however naïvely).
Here's a detailed breakdown of my take:
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;
The key word here is always, so, intolerant philosophies shouldn't always be suppressed.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
The condition for not suppressing intolerant philosophies is if they can be kept in check and countered by public opinion and rational argument.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;
Reserve the right to suppression if necessary..
for it may easily turn out that
Because the following things might easily happen:
they [the intolerant] 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.
An example of what may occur when the first approach fails due to essentially bad faith, and the reasoning for why to reserve the right to suppression. But it doesn't frame violence as the threshold for when to apply that suppression.
Anyway, that's my take. I'm still assuming this quote is accurate - I haven't checked it.
And once again I'm absolutely not agreeing with these positions or assertions about the suppression of intolerance, this is just how I understand the text.
and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
This is the operative statement to which I'm referring. If the party to which Popper is referring is not "answering arguments" with "fists and pistols," Popper is not making an affirmative case for suppression.
To be clear, he's not making an absolute statement either. He's not saying, "we may only ever suppress speech which is violent." However - and this is critical - he's also not making an affirmative statement that speech without violence should be suppressed. This is the original work and quote used to derive the Paradox of Tolerance, so I think it behooves us to heed that in this statement, he's referring to physical violence. Further, there are no statements of his in which he argues for suppression of non-violent speech.
This is an asked and answered question.
Tolerance is not a moral stance, it is part of the social contract. Those that violate the social contract, like Nazis, are not protected by it. Paradox solved.
Exactly. The “paradox” part disappears as soon as you start viewing things through the lens of a social contract. The intolerant are intentionally and repeatedly breaking the social contract, and are therefore not protected by it.
Understand tolerance as a social contract and not as a moral obligation. Tolerance is about piece within a society, not about right or wrong. If you do, there is no paradox, because the contract is broken and therefore does no longer apply. It also allows you to counter far right ideologies from whomever they come.
It's not a paradox, it's a social contract.
I am tolerant of everyone except those who are intolerant of people doing things that hurt no one and/or those who hurt others.
You don't like Nazis? Tolerance granted.
You don't like trans people? Tolerance denied.
It's incredibly simple to understand, isn't paradoxical and is easy to live by.
"Tolerance has a limit. Beyond that limit, intolerance becomes duty."
It's closer to the social contract of tolerance. If the contract is broken then the gloves are off, no one gives a damn about the universalist Christians but the Evangelicals are broadly hated on average, hell even my bloodthist is generally more socially acceptable than your average Evangelical since my focus is moreso directly on folks and entities who cause harm through secondary or primary effect.
Why are we so tied to the word tolerance specifically? Decency, kindness, courtesy, and empathy seem to be more what were all aiming for anyway.
Is it cuz tolerance is the bare minimum? (This is a genuine question)
Tolerance is useful because it conveys the notion of restraining from persecuting someone for something you specifically and perhapse strongly dislike (as long as it doesnt cross certain lines). It makes it unacceptable to use state or social power without a reasoned argument for actual harm.
It's funny how the word "tolerance" already implies that something is bad but you just act as if it's not. You wouldn't tolerate having enough food and water, you'd only tolerate the lack thereof.
I think tolerance is simply a liberal idea, and it's been a demonstrably exploitable one. The moment a reactionary says "aren't you supposed to be tolerant", I simply don't know where they're getting that from. I tolerate what I want, and the intolerant don't get to invoke my tolerance.
Karl Popper is also the guy who wrote about falsifiability
Big brain right there.
Edit: fixed the link.
Intolerance to not tolerant - just use the double negation and the paradox disappears.
It never really seemed like a paradox to me to begin with. To suggest that it is is just a rhetorical game used by the intolerant in bad faith.
The person who put forward the idea, or gave it a name, was a pretty notable philosopher who was notably in favor of a discourse driven liberal democracy, and against fascism.
He didn't mean paradox in the sense of "self contradictory and unresolvable" like the liars paradox. He meant it in the sense of "seemingly contradictory".
In order to have the most tolerant, rational discourse driven society possible there are some things you cannot tolerate, nor engage in discussion with , because if you cannot be persuaded there cannot be rational discussion.
So the paradox was named by a person explaining why you don't have to listen to Nazis just because you want to be open to new ideas and perspectives.
Coming to the conclusion that it's not contradictory is agreeing with the argument that it's okay to just tell Nazis to fuck off.
I've posted about this exact fucking thing before and I completely agree. There is no paradox, it's just a bullshit argument easily dismantled
Who's in charge of what is and is not "intolerant"?
that's the problem
For example, Christianity, Islam, Judaism are ALL intolerant faiths by their own admission.
Shhh Redditors really like this idea.
The whole confusion comes from upholding tolerance as a principle or ideal rather than actually understanding it's purpose. When people look at it that way, they either accept it or reject it, but both of those are wrong.
Where does the idea of tolerance come from? Hundreds of years ago, the West was wracked with constant wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants, on top of witch hunts, crusades, inquisitions, the whole "scarlet letter" thing. It was after this whole mess that people decided that it wasn't worth it anymore, and that we should just call truces, that we should allow each other to practice different faiths without coercion. Eventually, this expanded to other aspects beyond just religious beliefs, however, the fundamental core of what it is is that truce between religious factions.
In many cases, it is possible to discuss disagreements and resolve things, or, it is possible to coexist while believing different things. Whether the sacremental wine turns into the blood of Christ literally or figuratively is a perfect example of that.
However, it should be noted that this was a practical compromise driven by a balance of power between the respective sides. The word, "tolerance" should not be confused with the word, "acceptance." To tolerate something implies that you wish it were different, and you're just putting up with it out of necessity. It is a truce, a contract, a ceasefire, between different parties with conflicting aims and ideals. Go back in time and give either side modern assault rifles, a clear advantage, and they'd drop the idea of tolerance in a heartbeat.
When a ceasefire is violated, a certain degree of patience is called for. Itchy trigger fingers can destroy a peace that both sides are invested in maintaining. However, if one side is able to repeatedly and brazenly violate the ceasefire without consequence, then the ceasefire is essentially dead and no longer serves a meaningful purpose.
To view tolerance as a principle and ideal in itself means that you've already decided whether you're going to uphold or abandon the ceasefire before you've even seen how the other side is acting. Accepting tolerance on principle means letting people take advantage of you, while rejecting it on principle means alienating potential allies.
Obviously, it's impossible to tolerate the right because they are so intent on aggression against vulnerable people. However, and this is true, it is possible to tolerate different perspectives on the left, while disagreeing with them. Rather than letting one's experiences with the right inform their approach to tolerance in general, we should look at what is actually minimally necessary to coexist and potentially collaborate with people we disagree with. Instead of logicking one's way into saying that anyone who disagrees on any point is technically being intolerant and therefore paradox of intolerance, deplatform them and treat them exactly like fascists, consider whether they are actually being bigoted and intransigent, or whether it's more mundane disagreement.
Absolutes are absolute bullshit.
...all of them
I have conflicting thoughts about this.
More often than not this explanation is just used as a excuse to hate whatever group you want while labeling yourself as the good one. But applied to the ultimate consequences most people would still be intolerant.
The classical example of not tolerating nazis because they are intolerant to others, is used because it's a flawless example. The definition of a nazi is a person who wants to eliminate other groups from society just because what they are. A tolerant society cannot exist with them, so they have to go. Perfect.
But we have real life problems when we move from the perfect example to practical cases.
1The "everyone I don't like is a nazi" problem. Someone who wants to be a good intolerant just have to label their opponents as nazis, no matter if they are or not. Just the label is good enough.
While Nazis are used as a classical example. The more pure definition is, that tolerant society should not tolerate people who are intolerant. Thus, only allowed intolerance is the intolerance to the intolerant, any other type of intolerance should then make you a valid target for intolerance.
And here is when I see the biggest problem. That society doesn't usually fit most people values. I would give you several examples. Take billionaires, take robbers, take whatever kind of person you don't like, not only don't like but you don't want anyone like that in your society, for reasons different to them being intolerant. There are other undesirable values in a person that sometimes are worse than intolerance. The lack of tolerance to those people really puts you in the same spot as the Nazi in the paradox of intolerance. As you are hating on people for reasons different than they not being tolerant.
I see two honest solutions and one dishonest one.
The first honest solution is to strictly adhere to the idea of being tolerant everyone but the intolerant idea. Which will imply a higher effort to accept people in the society that you currently don't want to accept. Embrace that tolerance is the ultimate goal and just reject the intolerant, accepting everyone else, no matter what.
The second honest solution is to reject complete unconditional tolerance to everyone but the intolerant. Create a more strict set of values of what the society should tolerate. And embrace the idea that complete unconditional tolerance is a not the goal.
The dishonest solution is just lie about it. Seek excuses, loopholes or overcomplicated cherry picking reasonings on why the people you don't want to tolerate are actually intolerants and then covered by the paradox of intolerance and be happy with it.
To each their own. In the later years I'm feeling myself leaning more for the second honest solution. Unconditional tolerance is not a goal per se. I try to create a developed moral system that could actually be universal and that everyone and anyone could and should follow. And think that maybe I should not tolerate anyone that breaks this ethical rules. Basically instead of saying that the "golden rule" is to be tolerant and that's the only rule that people is not allowed to break. My golden rule is more on the lines of "be a good person", which is harder to define but I think it's more solid, and that's the only rule that should not be broken.
And here ends my TED talk.
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
