Sfdebris.net

Anybody familiar with this little philosophical proposition?

Nope!

*sigh*
This took me two seconds to find on Goodsearch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

To a point, sure. Certainly, we cannot tolerate violent acts, or incitement or threats of violence.

But it would be exceedingly dangerous to try to prohibit, or violently suppress, any point of view which is considered "intolerant", because while some things (like Nazism) are pretty clear-cut, a lot of time, what is considered hateful or bigoted is a matter of intense disagreement, and/or subjective.

There is probably not a single political position that is not considered hate speech by somebody.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:*sigh*

Sorry, it's just I was in a bit of a rush and am generally annoyed by "Hey guys, how do you feel about this topic you should know about? I'm not stating my opinion until I feel out the mood of the forum." Also, the way the OP was phrased could accept a "No." as well as a "Yes, and here's what I think..."


More on topic. I think an important factor is that a clear line needs to be drawn on what qualifies as "Unacceptable Intolerance". I mean, there are differing degrees of intolerance, and obviously acceptable targets for intolerance (i.e. Intolerance).

Are some groups more OK than others? Is it more OK to be intolerant of different social classes or occupations, than it is to be of social identity (race, gender, sexual preference)? What if there is a close correlation of some kind? Does it matter what particular group is not tolerated? Is intolerance of a group that is a known danger acceptable (Pedophiles, Psychopaths)?

How much intolerance is bad? Does it have to be total intolerance ("We shall only suffer our group to live"), or is focused intolerance bad too ("We shall not suffer group X to live")? How soft can the tolerance be (Killing and violence are obviously wrong, but is fear and stereotyping OK)? What if it's reverse intolerance (i.e. not "All other groups are inferior" but "Our group is the best")? Would that make patriotism unacceptably intolerant? Can private clubs select their own membership based on particular groups, or is that unacceptable (Example case: a Women's only gym rejected a transgender woman for not being a woman)?

How should we punish intolerance? Is hard time and fines more likely to inspire intolerance than to prevent it? Is re-education a viable alternative? Is societal shunning sufficient to eliminate the problem? What about rewarding tolerance instead of punishing intolerance?

I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn, but I think "Brazen neo-Nazis" is a start.

Sure, people throw the term "nazi" around a lot, that's why we have Godwin's Law. But if you work in a decent criteria for what qualifies Nazi behavior, such as, say, wearing the armbands, giving the Hitler salute, shouting any number of Nazi catchphrases, then you are unlikely to catch feminists, UPS workers, and the person who blocked you for posting your peace of mind on the My Little Pony forum in the net.

But then if you teach your Pug to Sieg Heil you'll be arrested by the Scottish Police. so...

Antiboyscout wrote:But then if you teach your Pug to Sieg Heil you'll be arrested by the Scottish Police. so...

...I really, truly, honestly don't know if you are trolling me or think this is somehow relevant to the issue.

Sweet zombie Jesus the internet is terrible:

"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. 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." -Karl "actual liberal" Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.