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.

  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    74·
    1 year ago

    Now what if they don’t actively seek to persecute, but they vote for people that follow their religion exclusively. These people enact laws that are harmful, but these laws were not the reason they chose them at the ballot. Still tolerant? Has it stepped into active yet?

    This is the issue. Intolerance breeds intolerance.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      113·
      1 year ago

      That would be intolerance since they are voting for someone who is intolerant. Assuming they didn’t know that person was intolerant and they don’t actively vote against that person in the future once they found out.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        24·
        1 year ago

        Is it still intolerance if when they voted they didn’t know? Or since they voted the politician changes their views? In your scenario it seems like wilful action is the decider. So, if it’s not wilful, it’s not intolerant?

        Let’s take trump, as an example. Many claimed he was racist and misogynistic before he was elected.People called him fascist. He’s now indicted on fraud and sexual assault etc. There was a breach of the capital. Are those that voted for him responsible, or just those convicted? If he lies and says it wasn’t his intent, but most people see through it, are those that continue to vote for him ignorant or wilfully ignorant?

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          32·
          1 year ago

          If it is blatantly obvious that the person is lying then they are willfully ignorant, and if they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong then they are intolerant.

          If they were lied to with no reason to believe the person was lying and immediately stop supporting them once they find out, then they were not being intolerant. Hard to fault someone who acted based on the knowledge they had at the time.

          Anyone who did not see through Trump’s lies were willfully ignorant because reality constantly contradicted him. But most people knew he was lying because he constantly contradicted himself and they agreed with his intolerant views and knew he was lying about anything he said that sounded tolerant.

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            2·
            1 year ago

            So 30%+ of America is intolerant by your measure? Seems awfully high. That’s the paradox of tolerance. The more you tolerate intolerance, the more it spreads. It’s insidious.

            Personally, I think your measure of what is tolerant and intolerant is not quite right. It’s beliefs and actions that matter. You seem to tolerate beliefs, even if intolerant, so long as the actions are within a framework you don’t think is acting intolerant. That framework will get pushed to the limit, then stretched, then breached. So, despite a different definition, the paradox applies. Allowing the intolerant to amplify and spread their views should not be tolerated. They won’t follow the rules in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t argue in earnest. They spread hatred and it grows. Tolerating the intolerance, not correcting it and calling it out allows it to grow. That is why intolerance should not be tolerated.

            • jonne@infosec.pub
              41·
              1 year ago

              30% seems about right, yeah. IIRC that’s also the highest electoral margins the Nazis got in free elections.