- cross-posted to:
- coolguides@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- coolguides@lemmy.world
Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
I’ve always disliked how this is described as a paradox. It only highlights a broader point found in many systems, a just system is never about “the good” outnumbering “the bad”. It’s about a balanced equilibrium, as are most relationships. Besides, allowing intolerance is not a tolerant act, that’s not the way we define that term. To make such a claim would be as ridiculous as a racist person saying they are practicing tolerance by not challenging or question any of their bigoted thoughts and instead just letting them play out.
I view it as a contract. If you don’t abide by it, you are not covered
The paradox is that you can’t tolerate everything. You try to allow more and it winds up allowing less. Unless a system is so constrained that the will of the people is irrelevant - there are ideas you cannot allow to spread, or they will stop many other ideas from being spread.
Karl Popper is a cool dude, I’m sure if I read his paper on this topic I would completely agree with his points, it’s still a relevant conversation to be had. I just don’t like the term paradox. “If you are too nice to people you will get taken advantage of” is not a paradox. The paradox is just a variation on that.
Incorrect. The paradox is that ‘tolerate everything’ results in less tolerance than deliberately limiting scope. Nice has nothing to do with it. It’s about systems, and grudging allowance, and Nazis.
Any problem that is a prisoners dilemmas will produce this “paradox”. But people don’t describe prisoner’s dilemmas as paradoxes because they resolve in some equilibrium. In a prisoner’s dilemma, if one party always cooperates and does not cheat or punish, they will be eliminated by competition willing to do so. So in my example, if a society prioritizes niceness, then the nice will be taken advantage of, and there will no longer be nice people. But this doesn’t actually happen, but it’s the same logic.
The part where it doesn’t happen means it’s wrong.
Meanwhile, the thing with Nazis is really happening. Letting Nazis spread has demonstrably let Nazis spread… somehow. Trying to be more tolerant than a society which tells Nazis where to shove it is very directly threatening to make the future much less tolerant.
That’s not a dilemma, where cooperating with Nazis somehow works out better for you, and for Nazis. There is no optimal everybody-wins scenario, with Nazis. Because they’re Nazis.
This is like Jevon’s paradox, where more-efficient use of precious resources has the opposite outcome of what you’d expect. More efficient means less is needed. But what happens is: more gets used. The same thing can happen with tolerance: sometimes more results in less.
Most countries have laws or social norms that restrict Nazis, no one claims he be tolerant of Nazis so the theory does not apply to that case. I also don’t see Nazis anywhere, there are some fringe groups, like there always has been, and more polarized politics, but you can’t ban polarized politics, that would be a police state.
Your inability to identify and condemn fascism makes this entire conversation completely fucking pointless.
Nazi bullshit is polarized politics. You open by describing how most countries ban those polarized politics. Like you’re also fuzzy on the definition of “most.” It does not mean “all.” And even in those countries, there are people arguing to allow overt fascist rhetoric. Mostly: fascists. But also a lot of well-meaning dinguses who think society being nice is good, and being nicer would be gooder, so they should be nicer to Nazis.
But that’s how you wind up with Nazis spreading, and threatening to do an actual police state, where their fascist horseshit is the only opinion that’s allowed.
That’s what makes it a paradox.
If it takes you another entire week to reply, and your hot take is still confused denial, keep it to yourself.
I just don’t log in that often, still stuck on the Reddit juice. The paradox requires that society be maximally tolerant, if there is some level of intolerance and tolerance to authoritarian ideas, that’s just regular society, happens in every country, and is not an example of a country that is exclusively tolerant of all positions.
I don’t know of any country where someone can be openly pro fascist. I’m sure you could find some for me outside of western countries but that’s not the point. That is, unless you are one of those people that calls Trump supporters literal fascist, in which case I will say: I think Trump is a used car salesman, an idiot, a massive problem for the United States, but definitely not a fascist coming to take over America. But if you believe that, then I can see why you believe people tolerate fascism but unfortunately that is a false perception and I’m not gotta be able to talk you out of it in an online post.