The Paradox of Tolerance

[Yukle]

There's an excellent piece of writing in Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies.

The most famous extract refers to "The Paradox of Tolerance," which at its core is used to explain the troubled relationship that freedom of speech has with the reality of expressing that speech. Here's Popper's words:

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.

This is a really excellent theory that explains what I see going on in the world now: bigotry is defended as freedom of expression - but much of that bigotry is demanding the suppression of other freedoms. Taken to its logical conclusion, standing by to allow unrestricted free speech means that, eventually, none of us will have it at all.

I think this is a fascinating concept. And one that I don't have a solution to (it being a paradox and everything).

[Kalbear]

I thought this essay did a good job of reflecting my views on what tolerance is: namely, tolerance for me is accepting others provided there are specific, certain shared values we have - such as my continued existence. Failure to adhere to those values means you have broken the treaty and are not subject to my tolerance.

Quote

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

So yes, I can happily tolerate other people's behaviors and issues provided that their behavior isn't 'encourage others to kill me', or 'stop people like me from getting jobs or being able to participate in society'. 

[ThinkerX]

Nutty radio program I listen to at work often cites dubious internet polls and 'facts that may not be true' for entertainment.  The poll yesterday was topics to avoid to preserve family peace on T-Day.  Number one on that list was Donald Trump.  Most of the other ten were politically related as well, things like immigration, the economy, and foreign affairs. 

Up until a couple years ago, there were vigorous debates on these topics among my clan during the big family get-together's.   Not this time.

It's almost like we are living in the prequel to one of those dystopian future novels/movies.

[Rippounet]

The paradox of tolerance is that you can (and should) be tolerant of what other people are, but that doesn't mean you should be tolerant of what they think.

All humans should be seen as equals, but ideas definitely aren't.
Ideas that attempt to determine a hierarchy in humans especially should be shat on.

[Eggegg]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The paradox of tolerance is that you can (and should) be tolerant of what other people are, but that doesn't mean you should be tolerant of what they think.

All humans should be seen as equals, but ideas definitely aren't.
Ideas that attempt to determine a hierarchy in humans especially should be shat on.

Agree. Beliefs should always be open to challenge, nobody gets to have their ideas walled off from the world and protected.

[The Marquis de Leech]

An excellent youtube video on this, as it applies to the far-right:

 

[Werthead]

This is the key difference between the United States and Europe. Europe has seen where unquestioning tolerance gets you (Nazis, WWII and so forth), and puts limits on speech that leads to the same place. American hasn't, at least not internally. The concern, I think, is that only a major internal strife would get the United States to the same place where Europe is.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

This is the key difference between the United States and Europe. Europe has seen where unquestioning tolerance gets you (Nazis, WWII and so forth), and puts limits on speech that leads to the same place. American hasn't, at least not internally. The concern, I think, is that only a major internal strife would get the United States to the same place where Europe is.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you think that Nazi's and WWII have something to do with tolerance and free speech, or that Europe is somehow restrictive when it comes to free speech then I have no idea where you are getting that.

[Werthead]

15 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you think that Nazi's and WWII have something to do with tolerance and free speech, or that Europe is somehow restrictive when it comes to free speech then I have no idea where you are getting that.

There are hate speech laws in Europe which don't exist in the United States (and can't, due to the Constitution), so yes, WWII and Nazi propaganda and media manipulation resulted in a change of attitude which adjusted people's ideas to freedom of speech and tolerance. The US, although it took part in WWII, was not as intimately involved in the build-up and suffered no conflict at home (apart from Pearl Harbour), so didn't change its laws to deal with the situation.

Europe is not "restrictive" due to free speech, but it clamps down hard on hate speech, which is sightly different. The degree to which it is enforced, especially in newly-joined member countries, is debatable, however.

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

There are hate speech laws in Europe which don't exist in the United States (and can't, due to the Constitution), so yes, WWII and Nazi propaganda and media manipulation resulted in a change of attitude which adjusted people's ideas to freedom of speech and tolerance. The US, although it took part in WWII, was not as intimately involved in the build-up and suffered no conflict at home (apart from Pearl Harbour), so didn't change its laws to deal with the situation.

Europe is not "restrictive" due to free speech, but it clamps down hard on hate speech, which is sightly different. The degree to which it is enforced, especially in newly-joined member countries, is debatable, however.

And what is the outcome and advantage of these hate speech laws in Europe, a continent racked with islamic terrorism and an upsurge in far right sentiment.
 

Quote

Europe has seen where unquestioning tolerance gets you (Nazis, WWII and so forth)

I still want you to quantify this statement, how was WWII anything to do with a lack of hate speech laws. 

[Seli]

3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

..

I still want you to quantify this statement, how was WWII anything to do with a lack of hate speech laws. 

 

It is fairly simple. European countries have first hand experience in what happens when political groups use the tools of the political system to destroy it, and are happy because they were never willing to play by they rules of that system. They have experience in all the damage that this causes at a deep level, there is a reason the important WW2 stories are about resistance and suffering rather than about the armies.

The USA (and to a large extent the rest of the English speaking world) never actually felt that pain, was never forced to confront that internal danger.

Which is one of the reasons 'free speech' is more easily regulated in Europe than in the USA.

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

And what is the outcome and advantage of these hate speech laws in Europe, a continent racked with islamic terrorism and an upsurge in far right sentiment.

The US has far more domestic acts of  terrorism on its soil compared to all of Europe, and it's not even close. 

And yeah, Europe has had an upsurge of far-right sentiment. That party has 10% of the vote in Germany, and that's scary! The US has 50% of its voters thinking the same thing. 

 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

And what is the outcome and advantage of these hate speech laws in Europe, a continent racked with islamic terrorism and an upsurge in far right sentiment.

It's a good question.
No one can know for certain what impact hate speech laws have. However, they are part of a greater picture that informs us on how peoples and politicians deal with far-right ideas. The most heinous ideas cannot be spread, which means the political parties on the far-right have to express mild forms of xenophobia rather than overt racism. In fact, generally speaking, the public debate centers around immigration (its drawbacks or benefits) and cultural values (and possible threats to the traditional ones) rather than anything more despicable.
In a nutshell: hate speech laws prevent the far-right from openly spreading fascist or nazi ideas. You might say that it doesn't completely suppress such ideas, or that the far-right still benefits from islamophobia, and I would have to agree. But as far as politics goes, everyone has to be extremely careful not to advocate or condone genocide or ethnic cleansing. On the one hand, it prevents such ideas from gaining ground ; on the other hand, it makes the threat more insidious, since the far-right uses coded language that makes it more acceptable to voters.
I personally believe that it's better to take the stance that some ideas are unacceptable. On some level, it might make the far-right more insidious, because some people are fooled by its strategies of normalisation. But overall, most of the population still has to accept that some ideas are so dangerous as to be banned. This principle is by itself important, because once the law clearly states that one may not indulge in hate speech it's easier to explain the law than to have to debunk the far-right theories themselves.
Edit: also, anyone breaking the law then becomes clearly identified as a neo-nazi of sorts, which is quite useful.

[Werthead]

Quote

And what is the outcome and advantage of these hate speech laws in Europe, a continent racked with islamic terrorism and an upsurge in far right sentiment.

You mean a continent where the number of deaths per year is at a far lower ebb than the 1970s when the IRA, ETA and other home-grown terror movements were raging out of control?

Islamic fundamentalist terror is a major security concern and needs to be dealt with. Blowing it out of all realistic proportion with Daily Mail levels of fearmongering is not a helpful way of doing that. We've just had a situation tonight where London was put on terror alert because two gangs got into a fight on a train station and people started hysterically tweeting that it was an Islamic terror attack with no evidence. Dealing with the reality of the situation rather than a exaggerated perception is one of the best ways of denying Islamic terror groups the paranoia, fear and kneejerk reactions they crave.

[Yukle]

17 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The paradox of tolerance is that you can (and should) be tolerant of what other people are, but that doesn't mean you should be tolerant of what they think.

That's an excellent way to put it.

 

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

You mean a continent where the number of deaths per year is at a far lower ebb than the 1970s when the IRA, ETA and other home-grown terror movements were raging out of control?

It's also weird how Muslims are treated as if they're some new force in Europe, when they've been living there for more than 1000 years. The whole Iberian peninsula was once part of the Umayyad Caliphate.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

That's an excellent way to put it.

 

It's also weird how Muslims are treated as if they're some new force in Europe, when they've been living there for more than 1000 years. The whole Iberian peninsula was once part of the Umayyad Caliphate.

Yeah, and Constantinople was part of the Christian Empire. Should we revert to the original borders? And just how far back do you want to go?

[Rippounet]

This is from today, after the terrorist attack in Egypt:
http://plantu.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2017/11/VICTIMES-550.jpg
The caption reads "Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism."
A useful reminder, I would say, with so much islamophobic crap flying around.

[Eggegg]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

You mean a continent where the number of deaths per year is at a far lower ebb than the 1970s when the IRA, ETA and other home-grown terror movements were raging out of control?

Islamic fundamentalist terror is a major security concern and needs to be dealt with. Blowing it out of all realistic proportion with Daily Mail levels of fearmongering is not a helpful way of doing that. We've just had a situation tonight where London was put on terror alert because two gangs got into a fight on a train station and people started hysterically tweeting that it was an Islamic terror attack with no evidence. Dealing with the reality of the situation rather than a exaggerated perception is one of the best ways of denying Islamic terror groups the paranoia, fear and kneejerk reactions they crave.

Yes we should be completely fine with the tiny levels of terrorism that we are experiencing now. It’s all totally fine isn’t it. Those 3 major terror attacks in the UK just this year aren’t what are making people scared, but the right wing press hyping up the paranoia.

and still Europe has a far greater problem with right wing extremism than the US, despite supposedly helpful hate speech laws. We have outwardly racist parties almost getting into power in many of the major countries in Western Europe, I cant for the life of me see how enforcing limits on free speech has changed anything. If anything it creates a paranoia and an underground feeling of togetherness amongst certain groups that they need to fight back against governments.

[Ran]

@Eggegg

How does this:

Quote

Yes we should be completely fine with the tiny levels of terrorism that we are experiencing now

 

Fit with this:

 

Quote

Islamic fundamentalist terror is a major security concern and needs to be dealt with.

?

Engage with what was said, not what you're imagining, and productive discussion would be easier.

[Eggegg]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

You mean a continent where the number of deaths per year is at a far lower ebb than the 1970s when the IRA, ETA and other home-grown terror movements were raging out of control?

 Blowing it out of all realistic proportion with Daily Mail levels of fearmongering is not a helpful way of doing that. We've just had a situation tonight where London was put on terror alert because two gangs got into a fight on a train station and people started hysterically tweeting that it was an Islamic terror attack with no evidence. Dealing with the reality of the situation rather than a exaggerated perception is one of the best ways of denying Islamic terror groups the paranoia, fear and kneejerk reactions they crave.

Delete that one sentence and the rest of it is clearly trying to diminish the threat of Islamic terrorism