this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
790 points (97.2% liked)
Not The Onion
12358 readers
481 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The paradox of tolerance suggests we draw a line and decide some things are unacceptable to tolerate or the tolerant will be overwhelmed by the intolerant. I'm sure Poppers arguments are not without flaws but absolute free speech is a pipe dream.
There are limits to free speech in US laws already, some common examples are slander, libel, and threats. There's also "imminent lawless action" where words inciting violence can be restricted.
Maybe I'm drawing a false correlation between the two ideas but in general I don't think it's so black and white as you might suggest.
The paradox of tolerance is some philosopher's idea, not some sort of axiom. We really need to stop quoting it. It's not even the only idea of its kind. There are several philosophers with more nuanced takes.
The philosopher was correct. We should keep quoting it.
Says who? It's okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it's a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that's how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.
Wait, are you arguing with the concept that intolerance seeks to destroy tolerance?
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That's what Rawls argues.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
For example, France's ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That's how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.
If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn't a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I'm not trying to "both sides" this, I'm trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn't actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.
All we can do is give it our best try. It's better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can't get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.
The good news is that you don't have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.
I don't agree, but even so, you haven't proposed an alternative yet.
I did state that his argument was not without its flaws. It still serves its purpose as a thought experiment about how a society should handle radically dissenting opinions.
I won't pretend to know the answer in practice and censorship makes me uneasy but my debate is against free speech absolutionists.