I also agree that society should tolerate freedom of speech. But when that freedom of speech is being used to weaponize and remove others’ freedom of speech, we should not tolerate that.
Paradox of intolerance is largely irrelevant. Democracies don’t collapse because of free speech, they collapse because the public loses faith in them (justified or not).
If you run around making wild statements, the public isn’t going to automatically believe you unless it corresponds with some personal experience or observation. This is why libertarian and socialist movements (and Nazi movements) crash and burn in the US. There claims just don’t correspond with how people perceive there country.
The concept of tolerance is not and never has been about accepting the choices and actions of other people without exception. You do not tolerate someone punching you in the face. You do not tolerate someone diddling kids. You do not tolerate Nazis. By ignoring these actions you are not indicating tolerance, you are indicating ACCEPTANCE. You’re fine with Nazis, and diddlers, and people randomly punching you in the face.
Calling this “tolerance” reeks of “well ackshully…” at the highest academic level. It’s intentionally misunderstanding a human concept in favor of a dictionary definition.
You are never intolerant of intolerance, you REJECT intolerance, making the whole thing moot.
Also the whole concept gives Nazis a reason to whine about “discrimination” while they’re being woodchippered and those little removed already scream enough when fed in feet-first.
That’s actually intentional. Popper’s philosophical wanking has been wildly co-opted and twisted by the right. ‘So much for the tolerant left!’ they cry. Like the ‘meet me in the middle’ argument it’s designed to just shit the waters up.
I ain’t meeting the cunts in the middle and who the fuck told you i was the tolerant left.
It’s a philosophical concept that defines a particular paradox in a society that has unlimited tolerance specifically. It was actually one of a few paradoxes defined in the work it was popularized and pointed out in.
Looking it up would actually be beneficial because the works it comes from, and is derived from, are all very much well worth reading. The funny thing is this paradox basically comes from a footnote, so if one is worried about reading a whole book about it, they’ll have nothing to worry about.
It’s a term that comes up a lot now because Nazi apologists argue from a position that society is unlimitedly tolerant and so they must be tolerated, and then this gets brought up. Of course, the response is as you say: we’ve never been an unlimitedly tolerant society.
If anything, the paradox is a good thing to consider when people demand that unlimited tolerance, like free speech types who think they should be able to say anything they want without consequence.
Look up the paradox of intolerance.
I also agree that society should tolerate freedom of speech. But when that freedom of speech is being used to weaponize and remove others’ freedom of speech, we should not tolerate that.
Because of all the political power Nazis have…
Paradox of intolerance is largely irrelevant. Democracies don’t collapse because of free speech, they collapse because the public loses faith in them (justified or not).
If you run around making wild statements, the public isn’t going to automatically believe you unless it corresponds with some personal experience or observation. This is why libertarian and socialist movements (and Nazi movements) crash and burn in the US. There claims just don’t correspond with how people perceive there country.
Yeah man, if we tolerate those damn tram-hailers it’s a slippery slope from there right down to fascism
They were defending the usage of Nazi salutes, not the right to hail a tram lol
I read that as “ham-trailers” and that sounds like the perfect term for people the size of NFL linemen.
Or don’t look up the paradox of intolerance because it’s nothing more than linguistic masturbation.
For the sake of discussion, would you mind explaining why you feel this way?
The concept of tolerance is not and never has been about accepting the choices and actions of other people without exception. You do not tolerate someone punching you in the face. You do not tolerate someone diddling kids. You do not tolerate Nazis. By ignoring these actions you are not indicating tolerance, you are indicating ACCEPTANCE. You’re fine with Nazis, and diddlers, and people randomly punching you in the face.
Calling this “tolerance” reeks of “well ackshully…” at the highest academic level. It’s intentionally misunderstanding a human concept in favor of a dictionary definition.
You are never intolerant of intolerance, you REJECT intolerance, making the whole thing moot.
Also the whole concept gives Nazis a reason to whine about “discrimination” while they’re being woodchippered and those little removed already scream enough when fed in feet-first.
Tolerance is a social contract. If people aren’t taking part in that social contact they don’t deserve the benefits of it.
Quoth the Prophet Lana: Yyyyyyyyyyyyup.
That’s actually intentional. Popper’s philosophical wanking has been wildly co-opted and twisted by the right. ‘So much for the tolerant left!’ they cry. Like the ‘meet me in the middle’ argument it’s designed to just shit the waters up.
I ain’t meeting the cunts in the middle and who the fuck told you i was the tolerant left.
It’s not “linguistic masturbation” though.
It’s a philosophical concept that defines a particular paradox in a society that has unlimited tolerance specifically. It was actually one of a few paradoxes defined in the work it was popularized and pointed out in.
Looking it up would actually be beneficial because the works it comes from, and is derived from, are all very much well worth reading. The funny thing is this paradox basically comes from a footnote, so if one is worried about reading a whole book about it, they’ll have nothing to worry about.
It’s a term that comes up a lot now because Nazi apologists argue from a position that society is unlimitedly tolerant and so they must be tolerated, and then this gets brought up. Of course, the response is as you say: we’ve never been an unlimitedly tolerant society.
If anything, the paradox is a good thing to consider when people demand that unlimited tolerance, like free speech types who think they should be able to say anything they want without consequence.