The Paradox of Intolerance

[Higus]

"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."

Karl Popper, Jewish philosopher who fled from Nazis in the 1930s

Saw this on Reddit this morning and thought it was interesting food for thought. I don't support violent protests/counterprotest, but it helped me realize that there is probably no peaceful way for intolerant ideology to flourish peacefully in a tolerant society, and vice versa. Any thoughts?

 

[HomeCheese]

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.

 

[Gunny]

Karl Popper, Jewish philosopher who fled from Nazis in the 1930s

Saw this on Reddit this morning and thought it was interesting food for thought. I don't support violent protests/counterprotest, but it helped me realize that there is probably no peaceful way for intolerant ideology to flourish peacefully in a tolerant society, and vice versa. Any thoughts?

My first thought is that Islam is an intrinsically intolerant ideology. What to do then?

 

[waiguoren]

Tolerance is not the same as embrace or acquiesence.

Let the idiots protest if they have the proper permits. Let them spew their idiotic messages. Debate them, shame them, monitor them and take appropriate defensive measures.

 

[Higus]

My first thought is that Islam is an intrinsically intolerant ideology. What to do then?

It's a fair question. From my perspective, it's not that liberals embrace Islamic ideology, but rather reject that people of Islamic or middle eastern decent should not be allowed to participate in the American experience. They have faith, and perhaps too much, that people immigrating to the US integrate and contribute to society better than they do in other places, and that extreme intolerant religious values will eventually be flattened with prolonged exposure to the melting pot.

 

[Gunny]

It's a fair question. From my perspective, it's not that liberals embrace Islamic ideology, but rather reject that people of Islamic or middle eastern decent should not be allowed to participate in the American experience. They have faith, and perhaps too much, that people immigrating to the US integrate and contribute to society better than they do in other places, and that extreme intolerant religious values will eventually be flattened with prolonged exposure to the melting pot.

So yes, there are Muslims and there's Islam. An individual is a Muslim. A mosque is Islamic - and Islam is intrinsically intolerant (you can throw in other religions if you want - this is just a thought experiment). So do we ban mosques? Or if not, do we monitor and regulate the speech that takes place inside of them?

 

[Higus]

So yes, there are Muslims and there's Islam. An individual is a Muslim. A mosque is Islamic - and Islam is intrinsically intolerant (you can throw in other religions if you want - this is just a thought experiment). So do we ban mosques? Or if not, do we monitor and regulate the speech that takes place inside of them?

Are you asking from a legal/government perspective or just how a tolerant culture should respond?



A tolerant culture should support tolerant religions and ideologies. If a religion is not compatible with the tolerant culture, it has 2 options: Either resist the culture or adapt to the culture. So a mosque that preaches intolerance should be resisted against (however that might be defined), and a mosque that preaches tolerance should be supported by its community. We could devolve into a "no true Scotsman" argument from there, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that there are mosques/churches and Muslims/Christians that are compatible with a tolerant society.

 

[dontsnitch]

It's not pedantic to suggest that the term intolerance be defined, because every ideology is intolerant to a degree as it discriminates against the opposing viewpoint. At what point does arguing for a strict immigration policy become intolerant to the people it directly affects? At what point does liberalism become intolerant of conservatism?

I'd be more open to resolving this so-called paradox if it wasn't so obvious that the author just doesn't want white supremacists to speak, and it's not obvious to me that he's willing to consistently apply this across the board.

 

[oldshadow]

Our 1st amendment does a good job of balance.

The Nazi and other hat groups have the right of free speech as long as they remain inside the law.

Hate speech laws are counter productive to a free exchange of ideas.

The old quote is true "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants".

The guy in the op wants the speech he doesn't like stopped and that's his sole criteria, speech he finds offensive.

 

[Gunny]

Are you asking from a legal/government perspective or just how a tolerant culture should respond?



A tolerant culture should support tolerant religions and ideologies. If a religion is not compatible with the tolerant culture, it has 2 options: Either resist the culture or adapt to the culture. So a mosque that preaches intolerance should be resisted against (however that might be defined), and a mosque that preaches tolerance should be supported by its community. We could devolve into a "no true Scotsman" argument from there, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that there are mosques/churches and Muslims/Christians that are compatible with a tolerant society.

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

 

[IDL]

Tolerance isn't a virtue, to begin with. It just means don't stand up against anything basically. A tolerant society is a society of dairy cows. Good for milking and farming.

A tolerant society is also easily conquered.

 

[S-dot]

My perspective is that this isn't a hard problem to solve. When you begin planning violence ie Islamic jihadis, the rest of us need to become intolerant and violently destroy you and anyone in league with you. Talk all you want, bad ideas are most idealistically defeated with good ideas. That doesn't always work and when communication is no longer effective or possible, the tolerant majority has to be prepared to get violent.

 

[goldennirvana]

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.

But Antifa ARE just as bad as Neo-Nazis. I'm talking specifically about Antifa now, not every day people who went out to protest the alt-right's protest.

 

[goldennirvana]

My first thought is that Islam is an intrinsically intolerant ideology. What to do then?

The left has no problem with that kind of intolerance, and actually supports its growth in the West.

 

[brothir]

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.

 

[goldennirvana]

They have faith, and perhaps too much, that people immigrating to the US integrate and contribute to society better than they do in other places, and that extreme intolerant religious values will eventually be flattened with prolonged exposure to the melting pot.

Due to the sheer numbers of Muslims now migrating to the West, and especially Europe, Muslims have no reason to integrate. They will simply take over via demographics and assert their way of life over the new minority (non-Muslims).

 

[IDL]

But Antifa ARE just as bad as Neo-Nazis. I'm talking specifically about Antifa now, not every day people who went out to protest the alt-right's protest.

I think people don't realize the last couple of years with antifa acting like Mao's red guards. Or it could be that they are sympathetic to the violent advancement of leftist ideology.

 

[Higus]

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.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-davis-imam-20170726-story,amp.html

I thought I was clear. Support the tolerant mosques and reject the intolerant mosques. What you consider support or rejection is up to the individual willing to bear the consequences of said reaction.

What the government legally can or should do is a different discussion.

 

[goldennirvana]

Tolerance isn't a virtue, to begin with. It just means don't stand up against anything basically. A tolerant society is a society of dairy cows. Good for milking and farming.

A tolerant society is also easily conquered.

/thread

 

[luckyshot]

Karl Popper, Jewish philosopher who fled from Nazis in the 1930s

Saw this on Reddit this morning and thought it was interesting food for thought. I don't support violent protests/counterprotest, but it helped me realize that there is probably no peaceful way for intolerant ideology to flourish peacefully in a tolerant society, and vice versa. Any thoughts?

This is an application of the basic philosophical situation called "the tragedy of the commons."

In fact, any "virtue," if embraced absolutely will become destructive and turn in upon itself. That is why effective governance is all about mediation between competing values.

Aristotle pointed all this out a long time ago.

Tolerance isn't a virtue, to begin with. It just means don't stand up against anything basically. A tolerant society is a society of dairy cows. Good for milking and farming.

A tolerant society is also easily conquered.

But an intolerant society is stagnant and paralyzed. Could you really imagine a society where no new ideas, perspectives, or people were tolerated? We'd still be in the Stone Age.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as A or B. The right path is the middle path. We need to figure out what we will tolerate and to what degree, and what we will not tolerate. Society is a messy process that requires give and take communication, not absolutism.