I mean, the real solution is to think of tolerance in terms of real-world power relations and not as some abstract rule, but if this gets annoying people to shut up then I'm for it.
Isn't the whole "paradox of tolerance" thing just an even mix of fash trolling and terminal libshit in the first place? Like the only reason someone would ever try to argue from it is if they're a civility fetishist liberal making excuses for why they have to aid and abet bigotry, or a fascist troll trying to demand you aid and abet their bigotry by imagining that to do anything else would be to commit the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.
Like the correct response to someone appealing to the paradox of tolerance is just :pit: :yes-comm:
You're right, but this is a palatable and easy to remember/articulate thing for libs to say. It's useful and opens the conversation up to concepts like social contracts.
Yeah well have you heard of the logical fallacy of "I am rubber and you are glue" ?
These three Us will gain you the upper hand against any debate club kid
im confused about this post, maybe im not familiar enough with online debate-bros but i though the 'paradox of tolerance' was just about not tolerating people who aren't tolerant?
how does a fascist or liberal use the concept of 'fascists cannot be allowed in a tolerant society' to their ideological ends? why did this concept need fixing?
Liberals think you're being a hypocrite if you don't tolerate the intolerant (the paradox). Thus they think either you need to allow fascists in your society or you're not allowed to criticize fascists for being "intolerant" of whatever minority group they want to oppress.
so the addendum is to help liberals understand the concept by leaning on social contract theory, not actually disagreeing with the original?
A person cannot honestly believe that, because that would make them the most immense nerd ever existed, violating several physics laws of how much patheticness can be concentrated in a person's volume
It's mathematically impossible to be this dense
honestly
Those dipshits are all cryptofascists and they know it, and everyone else know it too.
It's a (supposed) paradox in the following sense:
- All viewpoints should be tolerated in society
- Intolerant views should be tolerated in society.
- If you tolerate intolerant views, sometimes society will collapse into intolerance as those views become prevalent.
- Therefore, tolerance is self-undermining.
This is dumb because (1) is just false. You don't have to give a fancy theoretical reason distinguishing between moral and social facts: just reject the premise.
but 3 & 4 already problematize absolute tolerance? how does one read through those points and come away with the idea society should be tolerant of nazis? :jesse-wtf:
This is dumb because (1) is just false.
I'm not an expert on Karl Popper, but the whole point of the paradox is that he was trying to reconcile the supposed western freedoms of expression (the so-called open societies) with the fact that it leads to its own contradiction: free speech with no restrictions leads to people freely expressing their freedom-repressing ideas. Some sort of exception needs to be made so this conceptual framework resists scrutiny. So-called closed societies like Cuba or whatever don't have this issue, indeed, they perform the labor of censor. It's just not a good theory of justice at all.
I’m so confused because I knew all of this but still don’t understand how that can be used to further anyone’s ideology but ours.
The whole reason you bring up the paradox of tolerance is to tell liberals “No, we can’t allow the fascists to speak, we need to beat the shit out of them because if you don’t they’ll break everything”
How do you read this and come away with the conclusion “we must have absolute tolerance”?
The worry is that if you're committed to all those premises, you have to come up with a way to reject the conclusion. That's what this clever move about distinguishing moral problems and social is supposed to be doing.
The more common liberal move is to reject (3), and say that the best ideas will meeting necessarily win out in the end. This is indicative of an extreme :brainworms: infestation, so at least the argument given in the picture is a little better than that.
Just being worried about this is a symptom of liberalism, though. You don't need a fancy argument; you can just say that fascist ideas shouldn't be tolerated. The end.
The paradox of tolerance is liberal "all opinions are equally valid" nonsense.
I like Zizek’s take on tolerance
Why are today so many problems perceived as problems of intolerance, not as problems of inequality, exploitation, injustice? Why is the proposed remedy tolerance, not emancipation, political struggle, even armed struggle? The immediate answer is the liberal multiculturalist's basic ideological operation: the "culturalization of politics" - political differences, differences conditioned by political inequality, economic exploitation, etc., are naturalized/neutralized into "cultural" differences, different "ways of life," which are something given, something that cannot be overcome, but merely "tolerated."
I dunno if I agree, but it IS funny that when a concept gets thwarted by its own logical end point, instead of tossing it altogether for being self-contradictory, an exception is lousily cobbled. Also Popper claims to have been a marxist.
Sorry, Trots, but your collaboration with literal nazis is too far :brace-cowboy:
i guess its a nice way of putting it but honestly social contract ethics is kind of liberal in itself. that said, it obviously doesn't matter if you're talking to chuds which is the point of this.
