The Paradox of Tolerance; a discussion.

[zinfamous]

I'm intolerant of physical violence and consequently I would resort to it if necessary to defend another. I disagree with how Popper framed his statement. The paradox exists only when there exists an all or nothing situation. Since that condition does not exist in the real world we are faced with a false dilemma.

There are no unlimited rights. Every freedom carries a mandate of responsible use. I can't yell fire in a theater for example and expect to get away with it. We can rightly use violence at need to defend ourselves while an attacker using the same means has no legal or moral justification.

So yes we can use appropriate means to oppose positions we find harmful, but there's a problem with that. When two parties have differing perspectives who decides who is being intolerant of who? The Right thinks the Left oppresses it and the Left the reverse. So one crushes the other? All that means is that the winner has the most power, not a superior perspective.

That is why we must tolerate what WE consider intolerance to some degree otherwise we become the moral dictators of the world. Who wants me being the all-powerful arbiter of what you can and cannot say? I should hope no one.

Yes some speech should be held up as despicable. Some should be challenged, but there are no absolute scenarios nor should there be.

You can only define that condition in retrospect. Your justification for such is, in itself, false. Who is the anointed one to determine when we are facing real fascism, or when we are not? Are we to listen to Orwell and simply treat all social claims of rising fascism as simply fear and projection? We already know that this is a real condition, that societies have before and will again fall into the same traps.

I think it is wholly irresponsible to wave away these conditions by quoting Orwell and suggesting that public response of the very same insidious rhetoric and action that we have seen before, is simply overreaction--and even more dangerous than simply letting fascists take power.

 

[Majes]

The issue is here is the mistaken elevation of tolerance to the level of a virtue.

We should be tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. This is no great revelation.

Yeah wouldn't it just be easier to understand that there are behaviors that should not be tolerated? Universal tolerance is probably worse than improper intolerance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You can only define that condition in retrospect. Your justification for such is, in itself, false. Who is the anointed one to determine when we are facing real fascism, or when we are not? Are we to listen to Orwell and simply treat all social claims of rising fascism as simply fear and projection? We already know that this is a real condition, that societies have before and will again fall into the same traps.

I think it is wholly irresponsible to wave away these conditions by quoting Orwell and suggesting that public response of the very same insidious rhetoric and action that we have seen before, is simply overreaction--and even more dangerous than simply letting fascists take power.

At what point do you kill or maim over words contrary to the law that says you can't do bodily harm against another? When do you join in with club, gun or knife? What justification do you personally need to reach before joining in? These are not thoughts for after the act, but before. If Coulter and others are fascists in your opinion and there are no shades- a Mussolini society cannot be permitted, then it is your moral imperative to stop her in any and all ways. Some keep saying how awful her speech is and evades the question of unlimited consequences being unacceptable.

When do you kill Coulter?

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah wouldn't it just be easier to understand that there are behaviors that should not be tolerated? Universal tolerance is probably worse than improper intolerance.

He's confused because "without God how do you know what the rules are "

 

[Moonbeam]

He's confused because "without God how do you know what the rules are "

Isn't the question, how would you know with or without God? The only religion I know of that seems to get this right, and I am very ignorant here, is Islam. I have read somewhere that the Jews go for an eye for an eye, and Christians, turning the other cheek, but in Islam you go ape shit on evil right up to the moment it surrenders. Then a contract takes place and all is forgiven except you get only that one chance. Act out again after that and it curtains. But always there is the question of what really is evil and what is just brainwashed opinion called bigotry. 5 minutes reading this forum and you will know that everybody thinks that what is right is what they think it is.

I would say the big tell is whether what is perceived as evil threatens ones life or ones ego. And the world is profoundly offensive for most people because they identify with the ego.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, that sounds like BS. My own motivations with regards to this are purely selfish. History shows us that intolerance, once allowed to act, never stops escalating. So I have every logical reason to believe that, if I stood by and did nothing, intolerance would eventually come for me and mine.

Those who believe that there is safety in the mob of the majority are fools IMO. We are all of us members of the smallest and least powerful minority, the individual. And the mob does not care about the individual.

To me the logical way in which you have formulated the issue is a sigh there is hope. He who can see that he is a minority of one and learn the lessons you have from that is ripe for another realization that you doubtless also already see. There is no other out there to feel superior or inferior to. There are only others like us. We are all the same.

In a world full of childhood fear we grow up hating what we learned to fear. In a childhood full of love and security we grow up full of openness and trust. We can choose to emphasize our likenesses or focus on the faults of others.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To me the logical way in which you have formulated the issue is a sigh there is hope. He who can see that he is a minority of one and learn the lessons you have from that is ripe for another realization that you doubtless also already see. There is no other out there to feel superior or inferior to. There are only others like us. We are all the same.

In a world full of childhood fear we grow up hating what we learned to fear. In a childhood full of love and security we grow up full of openness and trust. We can choose to emphasize our likenesses or focus on the faults of others.

But again he has go back to absolutes. To quote Pontius Pilate "What is Truth?". When there are competing rights who is the judge and what do we mean by "act". I believe these are questions we need to answer, at least for ourselves. Do we allow another Nazi state? No. How about churches who do not perform the ceremony of marriage, but seek to do good for others even homosexuals? Do they have to surrender or be attacked to conform? What about people who disagree with "everyone knows that this is Rightthinking". Do we "act" against them because they disagree on perhaps fundamental issues?

What is right and what is wrong and is it ego making those decisions?

People seem to have answers to the questions I do not fully understand in terms of consequences. I cannot be cocksure and I am uncertain, yet I am glad I am.

 

[zinfamous]

At what point do you kill or maim over words contrary to the law that says you can't do bodily harm against another? When do you join in with club, gun or knife? What justification do you personally need to reach before joining in? These are not thoughts for after the act, but before. If Coulter and others are fascists in your opinion and there are no shades- a Mussolini society cannot be permitted, then it is your moral imperative to stop her in any and all ways. Some keep saying how awful her speech is and evades the question of unlimited consequences being unacceptable.

When do you kill Coulter?

I'm talking about your claim of the existence of an "all or nothing situation" that would legitimize, as you agreed, violence.

You say that this situation does not exist, and I counter with: how do you know? This situation has existed in the past, but it wasn't known at the time that Europe was experiencing it to the seriousness that it became. "Oh this will all blow over" most pundits said. "Hey, they really are clawing themselves back out of the dirt, aren't they!" everyone said. "My, those are some admirable, strong leaders!" far too many people said.

The critics were roundly ignored because, well: they were just overreacting or unfairly ignoring "the good" that Mussollini and Hitler were doing for their beloved people.

It is a claim that can only be made when the dust is settled, and we can only say "we should have done more."

When and who decides the proper conditions for such a situation? As I said, it is very popular to characterize the wise words of Orwell, warning about the obsession over fascism, seeing it everywhere and thus diluting its significance, replacing it with another type of fascism. It's a good warning, but is universally misused as an excuse to ignore what is actually happening.

When do you decide? We well know that deciding what should be done about fascism, after the fact, is far too late.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm talking about your claim of the existence of an "all or nothing situation" that would legitimize, as you agreed, violence.

You say that this situation does not exist, and I counter with: how do you know? This situation has existed in the past, but it wasn't known at the time that Europe was experiencing it to the seriousness that it became. "Oh this will all blow over" most pundits said. "Hey, they really are clawing themselves back out of the dirt, aren't they!" everyone said. "My, those are some admirable, strong leaders!" far too many people said.

The critics were roundly ignored because, well: they were just overreacting or unfairly ignoring "the good" that Mussollini and Hitler were doing for their beloved people.

It is a claim that can only be made when the dust is settled, and we can only say "we should have done more."

When and who decides the proper conditions for such a situation? As I said, it is very popular to characterize the wise words of Orwell, warning about the obsession over fascism, seeing it everywhere and thus diluting its significance, replacing it with another type of fascism. It's a good warning, but is universally misused as an excuse to ignore what is actually happening.

When do you decide? We well know that deciding what should be done about fascism, after the fact, is far too late.

You site one example where people were slow to react. He can cite a legion of history where people who were certain of their truth slaughtered untold numbers of people. The moral issues here are not unlike what constitutes or does not constitute a just war, in my opinion. Certain criterion have to be met, not the lease of which is that the threat has acted out in ways that violate of other's rights.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, that sounds like BS. My own motivations with regards to this are purely selfish. History shows us that intolerance, once allowed to act, never stops escalating. So I have every logical reason to believe that, if I stood by and did nothing, intolerance would eventually come for me and mine.

Those who believe that there is safety in the mob of the majority are fools IMO. We are all of us members of the smallest and least powerful minority, the individual. And the mob does not care about the individual.

Degenerates rely on the virtuous to prosper, or at least people pretending to be virtuous:

At what point do you kill or maim over words contrary to the law that says you can't do bodily harm against another? When do you join in with club, gun or knife? What justification do you personally need to reach before joining in? These are not thoughts for after the act, but before. If Coulter and others are fascists in your opinion and there are no shades- a Mussolini society cannot be permitted, then it is your moral imperative to stop her in any and all ways. Some keep saying how awful her speech is and evades the question of unlimited consequences being unacceptable.

When do you kill Coulter?

Seems pretty easy to judge whether Coulter deserves an audience at schools, even if enablers for degeneracy will play all sorts of dumb to help them.

 

[Juiblex]

This is the problem with not tolerating intolerance. Tolerance is usually subjective and depends on the person you ask. What is tolerant to me is intolerant to another. What I find intolerant others find tolerant.

Take for example, this P&N board. Over the years the conservative members have been banned or run away from the discussion because if they bring anything up, they are labeled intolerant, racist, bigot, so on and so forth. So what we have now is a 95% liberal member base participating in these forums. What happens if this continues at a large scale, outside of the internet, and across the globe in all aspects? Conservatives may lash out because their voice is not heard. This leads to civil unrest. Maybe the liberals want to silence the conservatives, but I think anybody with any thought will realize that is not a healthy solution to any problem.

Now I'm not trying to bash this forum, we've seen this same type of things over the years when it comes to not tolerating gays, blacks, or any other or group of people who feel oppressed.

What it really comes down to is this: The only way we are going to get past this is if we start treating others with respect. Treat them how we'd want to be treated. We shouldn't give ourselves excuses for bad behavior: "I will only be nice if I find the other person x, y, or z..." Really, we should be nice regardless of who the person is, or what they do. Truth with love is what my wife says.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the problem with not tolerating intolerance. Tolerance is usually subjective and depends on the person you ask. What is tolerant to me is intolerant to another. What I find intolerant others find tolerant.

Take for example, this P&N board. Over the years the conservative members have been banned or run away from the discussion because if they bring anything up, they are labeled intolerant, racist, bigot, so on and so forth. So what we have now is a 95% liberal member base participating in these forums. What happens if this continues at a large scale, outside of the internet, and across the globe in all aspects? Conservatives may lash out because their voice is not heard. This leads to civil unrest. Maybe the liberals want to silence the conservatives, but I think anybody with any thought will realize that is not a healthy solution to any problem.

Now I'm not trying to bash this forum, we've seen this same type of things over the years when it comes to not tolerating gays, blacks, or any other or group of people who feel oppressed.

What it really comes down to is this: The only way we are going to get past this is if we start treating others with respect. Treat them how we'd want to be treated. We shouldn't give ourselves excuses for bad behavior: "I will only be nice if I find the other person x, y, or z..." Really, we should be nice regardless of who the person is, or what they do. Truth with love is what my wife says.

What your wife is referring to, of course, for this to be true, is not the kind of love most people think of when they use that word, but real love that can't be broken by disappointment. Many people can start out being loving and after a few gut punches become disappointed and angry. Real love requires wisdom, the realization that love can't be returned by people who can't practice it themselves. Real love carries no expectations of reward and isn't there to flatter the ego with the notion of self worth just because you espouse it. Real love, in my opinion, is crucifixion, the extinction of the dam in our hearts that when broken emits an endless flow of light. The only reward for love is capacity.

If you are looking for pay back you might want to study game theory that describes the dynamics of contesting egos.

 

[agent00f]

This is the problem with not tolerating intolerance. Tolerance is usually subjective and depends on the person you ask. What is tolerant to me is intolerant to another. What I find intolerant others find tolerant.

Take for example, this P&N board. Over the years the conservative members have been banned or run away from the discussion because if they bring anything up, they are labeled intolerant, racist, bigot, so on and so forth. So what we have now is a 95% liberal member base participating in these forums. What happens if this continues at a large scale, outside of the internet, and across the globe in all aspects? Conservatives may lash out because their voice is not heard. This leads to civil unrest. Maybe the liberals want to silence the conservatives, but I think anybody with any thought will realize that is not a healthy solution to any problem.

Now I'm not trying to bash this forum, we've seen this same type of things over the years when it comes to not tolerating gays, blacks, or any other or group of people who feel oppressed.

What it really comes down to is this: The only way we are going to get past this is if we start treating others with respect. Treat them how we'd want to be treated. We shouldn't give ourselves excuses for bad behavior: "I will only be nice if I find the other person x, y, or z..." Really, we should be nice regardless of who the person is, or what they do. Truth with love is what my wife says.

This rather assumes degeneracy is the same thing as being black or gay, and surely even you can see the error in this.

 

[Chiropteran]

I don't understand how someone can post that quote without seeing the incredible hypocrisy.

Islam is the ultimate example of intolerance. Women have little to no rights, homosexuals are killed for fun, even dogs are executed on the streets. But according to the liberal agenda we must be so tolerant of them that we let them immigrate into our country at will and give them free schooling and healthcare... or else we are the bad guys.

It's just mind boggling that this group can ignore all the acts of Muslims while simultaneously demonizing every Trump voter because... why exactly? Because some white supremacy group said they like Trump?

More on Karl Popper:

 

[agent00f]

I don't understand how someone can post that quote without seeing the incredible hypocrisy.

Islam is the ultimate example of intolerance. Women have little to no rights, homosexuals are killed for fun, even dogs are executed on the streets. But according to the liberal agenda we must be so tolerant of them that we let them immigrate into our country at will and give them free schooling and healthcare... or else we are the bad guys.

It's just mind boggling that this group can ignore all the acts of Muslims while simultaneously demonizing every Trump voter because... why exactly? Because some white supremacy group said they like Trump?

"My only accomplishment in life is being born white christian so it's in my self-interest to promote any social status that might afford" --typical degenerate any just god would condemn.

 

[Chiropteran]

Thanks for posting the completely irrelevant quote.

 

[agent00f]

Thanks for posting the completely irrelevant quote.

Your mental process is arguably pretty relevant.

 

[Chiropteran]

No, that's you.

I'm not even a white christian, although the fact that you use that as an insult shows what a racist piece of shit you are.

 

[1prophet]

Tolerating the intolerant is a false premise used by those seeking to suppress free speech, as the ACLU has proven time and time again, defending ones first amendment right does not mean you advocate or tolerate their views just like a defense attorney who represents a murdering, raping, neo nazi as a defendant and tries to keep him from going to jail does not mean the attorney tolerates murder, rape or neo nazis.

Would you tolerate the religious right taking a page out of the playbook from their cousins in the middle east and threatening to go Charlie Hedebo over some atheist, pro gay rights,pro choice rights, etc. speaker at some university who then gets shut down because there might be violence (hecklers veto) by those offended by their speech?


Why Censoring Speech Creates Extremists And Causes Atrocities Instead Of Stopping Them
http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-go...d-causes-atrocities-instead-of-stopping-them/

In the 1920s, the National Socialist German Workers Party was banned by the government of Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Nazis were prosecuted numerous times for “hate speech”. Rather than hinder the Nazis, this merely helped them in every way imaginable. Through the courts, the Nazis were given a platform to spread their views to a far wider section of the public than they otherwise would have had access to. Through their prosecutions, they were able to cultivate an image of themselves as martyrs and political prisoners, drawing people to their side in droves. Today, Europe is making the exact same mistake that it made with the Nazis.

"when a crazy idea is discussed freely and openly, then that idea is also refuted freely and openly. But, when that idea is only discussed in secret, then, the first time that one hears it being presented, they are necessarily alone with the person presenting it and they do not hear the other side. That makes it much, much easier to convince people as to the validity of the idea. They’ve never heard it articulated before, and they have no idea how to counter the points being made. It also gives those who promote whatever banned idea a sort of “persecuted prophet” complex. In their minds, the fact that the state is attempting to suppress their views becomes confirmation that they have found some sort of dangerous truth. In addition, the state taking away any peaceful, non-violent methods of venting their anger and frustration is much more likely to drive them to resort to violence in order to vent their boiling rage and get their message across.

 

[agent00f]

I'm not even a white christian, although the fact that you use that as an insult shows what a racist piece of shit you are.

Some of your peers like Svnla aren't either, but they sure all try to play the part for reasons obvious to anyone assuming that description is an insult.

 

[Chiropteran]

Some of your peers like Svnla aren't either, but they sure all try to play the part for reasons obvious to anyone indignant that description is an insult.

You can't call all muslims terrorists because of the actions of a few.

But it's okay to conflate me with svnla, whoever he is, just because we both like our president?

You aren't thinking with logic, my friend.

 

[agent00f]

You can't call all muslims terrorists because of the actions of a few.

But it's okay to conflate me with svnla, whoever he is, just because we both like our president?

You aren't thinking with logic, my friend.

Seems rather obvious a lot more conservatives are conservative than mulsims are terrorists.

 

[kinev]

What it amounts to is that the intolerant must, at some point, be thwarted from reaching their goals if we're to have a free egalitarian society. When that happens, they'll whine piteously, of course, claim to espouse the things they hate the most.

Is that a "free" society, though? To what degree do you have to be intolerant to warrant being thwarted? A little? A lot? Who gets to decide who the intolerant are or how "intolerant" you're allowed to be? The people in power? The majority? Do you see the inherent danger in that?

How do you thwart them? Silence them? Lock them away? Re-education? Violence? Death? Who gets to decide?

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that a "free" society, though? To what degree do you have to be intolerant to warrant being thwarted? A little? A lot? Who gets to decide who the intolerant are or how "intolerant" you're allowed to be? The people in power? The majority? Do you see the inherent danger in that?

How do you thwart them? Silence them? Lock them away? Re-education? Violence? Death? Who gets to decide?

No matter where you draw the line it's clear that White Nationalists & bigots of every stripe will be on the wrong side of it. It's also clear that declaring the Free Press to be the enemy of the people isn't supportive of free speech in the slightest. Quite the contrary.

 

[Amused]

Tolerating the intolerant is a false premise used by those seeking to suppress free speech, as the ACLU has proven time and time again, defending ones first amendment right does not mean you advocate or tolerate their views just like a defense attorney who represents a murdering, raping, neo nazi as a defendant and tries to keep him from going to jail does not mean the attorney tolerates murder, rape or neo nazis.

Would you tolerate the religious right taking a page out of the playbook from their cousins in the middle east and threatening to go Charlie Hedebo over some atheist, pro gay rights,pro choice rights, etc. speaker at some university who then gets shut down because there might be violence (hecklers veto) by those offended by their speech?


Why Censoring Speech Creates Extremists And Causes Atrocities Instead Of Stopping Them
http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-go...d-causes-atrocities-instead-of-stopping-them/

I think you misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

I don't advocate legal, government censorship. I advocate making is so socially unacceptable that it's absolutely shunned with complete disgust.

I would actually oppose any legal restrictions of so-called "hate speech." But I fully support making anyone who expresses such beliefs complete and utter social pariahs.