The Paradox of Intolerance

[goldennirvana]

Doesn't "tolerance" imply that you still hate it but put up with it anyway?

Yes. So if your belief system is based on being 'tolerant', you're essentially a coward. And that's what will destroy the West.

 

[Thunderflash500]

And which side is unwilling to rationally debate? The right or the left? Hmmmm. I see this as justification to suppress the left forcefully.

 

[SaiWa]

lol sorry, the analogy is to government having its way with you, and anyone else.

No no no allow us to take your words literally please... it would explain a lot!..

 

[SaiWa]

So what would you do with the Islamic Center of Davis, it's imam and all of its congregants?


https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...g-allah-to-annihilate-jews-in-sermon.amp.html

The problem is for every one Imam preaching intolerance in the US you will find one (if not more than 5) Christian preacher(s) doing the same about islam or some other faith or minorities...

Whatever you do to one do it to all of them I say...

 

[KILL KILL]

His whole argument hinges on the idea that intolerance will destroy tolerant groups

I say we follow our current laws and allow them to speak but don't allow them to destroy

I think this is the first time we agree on something.

 

[lifelessheap]

Certainly agree. You can not equate hate groups with those that come out to protest the hate group. Should German citizens that protested the Nazis be seen as equally bad as the Nazis? Of course not. It's the same as in Charlottesville and why Trump got it so wrong.

Now Trump tries to spin the white supremacist rally to be about confederate statues saying there were good people in that rally. If a good person was there and the group started chanting about Jews, that good person would have left.

If AntiFa gets their way you will be in a bread line soon, or you will be a statistic added to the number of people killed by communism.

AntiFa is a violent hate group. The Unite the Right people had some hateful assholes in their midst, but they went to the trouble of getting a permit from the government. They also are so insignificant in numbers and denounced by all rational people that they are not a threat.

However, the AntiFa clowns are funded by globalist billionaires and are working with politicians and have strong enough support to force police to receive stand down orders so they can shut down free speech and literally attack people. The KKK/WN crowd would never be free to get violent. They get shut down.

Are you okay with BLM and AntiFa getting freedom from the law? Are you okay with stand down orders allowing them to burn down neighborhoods and bring mob violence with anyone they disagree with? Are you okay with them shutting down free speech on college campuses?

It has gotten to the point where even Adam Corolla has had his speeches shut down due to the threat of violence. I mean, Corolla is a guy who brought us the Man Show. He has absolutely nothing hateful to say.

For shame.








I am sure you hold Muslims to the same standard.

 

[Gunny]

I wouldn't do a god damn thing except read about it on Sherdog. If they are doing something illegal, then they should be punished according to the law. If the law says to shut them down, so be it. If someone disliked it enough to be stirred into action, be it protest or petition, those reactions should be within the law.

The LAW (of our county at least) says they have freedom of speech- but that protection is also extended to the nazi's which your meme argues "must be outside the law". So would you agree with your meme that out laws should be changed to criminalize intolerant ideologies?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I'm surprised this is actually a thing. It's an incredibly obvious "problem": I've been aware of it since elementary school.

Resolving it is similarly simple:

1) Maximizing tolerance is good.
2) Tolerating people who want to minimize tolerance is likely to prevent that.
C) We can't tolerate the intolerant.

Note that this is not me embracing the above.

By not tolerating the intolerant, you become intolerant and therefore, intolerable.
Resolutions tend to be more sustainable than that so, maybe you shouldn't have assumed you'd resolved this in elementary school.

 

[eworden78]

Yes. So if your belief system is based on being 'tolerant', you're essentially a coward. And that's what will destroy the West.

I think it really depends on what we mean by tolerance.
Tolerance meaning 1: Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Tolerance meaning 2: Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) to exist and survive based on it's own merit, and not use force, influence and censorship to eliminate the offending item.

I think you DO need tolerance as a component of a healthy belief system, in order to have a healthy society. But in the case I mean, you need to allow things that you may not like or agree with, to stand or fall on their own merits or pitfalls. Intolerance in this sense is to isolate, eliminate, or ignore that which one find unpleasant or contrary to ones belief. In an intolerant society, new or different ideas will not have a chance to prove their merit, and thus society will stagnate.

In a truly open society, it's very hard for an large intolerance movement to gain momentum.

 

[IDL]

By not tolerating the intolerant, you become intolerant and therefore, intolerable.
Resolutions tend to be more sustainable than that so, maybe you shouldn't have assumed you'd resolved this in elementary school.

I think the point is that one should not be mentally handcuffed (mindcuffed?) by some McPhilosophy pushed by governments and corporations as part of a propaganda / social engineering campaign. It's basically just sloganeering.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I think the point is that one should not be mentally handcuffed (mindcuffed?) by some McPhilosophy pushed by governments and corporations as part of a propaganda / social engineering campaign. It's basically just sloganeering.

I thought the point was to condition people into failing their own convictions.
Confuse the population into unwitting acquiescence.

But i mIght just be being cynical today.

 

[IDL]

I thought the point was to condition people into failing their own convictions.
Confuse the population into unwitting acquiescence.

But i mIght just be being cynical today.

Learned helplessness and demoralization?

Haha I hadn't though of the tolerance campaign that way. Sheesh you are being even more cynical towards propoganda than I am! Kudos

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Glad you brought it up, and I think the solution is relatively easy in the case you're talking about. Just like judges have some room to apply the law more strongly and weakly, so do law enforcement and other groups. A hate group like this has repeatedly proven itself across the centuries to be a violent, and at times existential threat, and cannot be tolerated at all. That means stricter enforcement of peaceful conduct, taking a longer look at permits, giving them first consideration for handcuffs, more surveillance, etc. We have room to crack down on them within the rule of law, and we should be generous about it.

Excellent suggestion to deal with violent hate groups like Antifa.

 

[brothir]

By not tolerating the intolerant, you become intolerant and therefore, intolerable.
Resolutions tend to be more sustainable than that so, maybe you shouldn't have assumed you'd resolved this in elementary school.

That's a separate argument with a different set of premises, and as such has no bearing on the argument I presented. So my argument still resolves the paradox: maybe not to your liking, but I don't care about that at all.

 

[lalaland]

Doesn't "tolerance" imply that you still hate it but put up with it anyway?
We've been there as a society for quite some time.

Yes, you tolerate pain and boredom, not fun and pleasure.

 

[Higus]

The LAW (of our county at least) says they have freedom of speech- but that protection is also extended to the nazi's which your meme argues "must be outside the law". So would you agree with your meme that out laws should be changed to criminalize intolerant ideologies?

Read the OP again for my opinion. I do not support violent protests or counter protests, I only note that the 2 ideologies cannot peacefully coexist. If you want to go further than that, I'll say it's also a good explanation of the false equivalence comparing the Antifa and Neo Nazi's. IMO, law provides plenty of ways for differences in ideologies to be legally expressed without violence.

 

[Gunny]

Read the OP again for my opinion. I do not support violent protests or counter protests, I only note that the 2 ideologies cannot peacefully coexist. If you want to go further than that, I'll say it's also a good explanation of the false equivalence comparing the Antifa and Neo Nazi's. IMO, law provides plenty of ways for differences in ideologies to be legally expressed without violence.

But you're avoiding the question. The meme says intolerant ideologies should be made outside the law. That's currently not the case in the US. Do you favor altering the law to criminalize intolerant ideologies?

 

[RockstarChris]

Certainly agree. You can not equate hate groups with those that come out to protest the hate group. Should German citizens that protested the Nazis be seen as equally bad as the Nazis? Of course not. It's the same as in Charlottesville and why Trump got it so wrong.

Now Trump tries to spin the white supremacist rally to be about confederate statues saying there were good people in that rally. If a good person was there and the group started chanting about Jews, that good person would have left.

I agree, the groups that came out to protest the Nazis have murdered way less people.

But to pretend that they (the violent liberals) are not partially at fault for what happened is the same as putting your head in the sand like many German citizens did during WW2. Just because you don't want to believe something doesn't make it untrue.

 

[Higus]

But you're avoiding the question. The meme says intolerant ideologies should be made outside the law. That's currently not the case in the US. Do you favor altering the law to criminalize intolerant ideologies?

I'm not in favor of thought-crime regulation, nor do I think that was Popper's suggestion. Read the expanded quote again:

"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 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. 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."

The point isn't that intolerant ideologies should be made illegal, it just address the paradox of intolerance towards intolerant ideology and why tolerant people have a right to challenge intolerance, by force if necessary. And it is my opinion that neither draconian legislation nor force is necessary at this point in time.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not in favor of thought-crime regulation, nor do I think that was Popper's suggestion. Read the expanded quote again:



The point isn't that intolerant ideologies should be made illegal, it just address the paradox of intolerance towards intolerant ideology and why tolerant people have a right to challenge intolerance, by force if necessary. And it is my opinion that neither draconian legislation nor force is necessary at this point in time.

So I agree the full quote is a lot more reasonable than the silly meme would lead you to believe.

Also worth noting, the quote basically articulated the rational basis on which the US defended itself from the spread of communism in the mid-20th century. It also applies just as well to antifa though you seemed to be resisting that notion in an earlier post.