#Popper explains the #tolerance paradox, or why you should not tolerate intolerance.

@Aarkon Unfortunately, just because Popper said it doesn't mean that it's right, and it's a textbook case of a slippery slope argument. The specific counterargument rests on the question of the necessity of the consequences. MUST tolerating the intolerant lead to wiping out tolerance? No, it's quite possible for tolerance to win regardless; otherwise events such as the civil rights developments in the USA could not have happened.

So what is the safety in the system? Civil liberties.

@jankoekepan @Aarkon
a different argument: I am in favour of tolerance. I respect many different views, because my touchstone isn't the truth or falsehood of such views, but the central truth that there is room for multiple truths. Bob, a nazi, believes there is only one truth; we are fundamentally at odds. Moreover, he wants to destroy anyone that thinks like me. I say: fuck Bob. I see no contradiction here.

@shadowfirebird @Aarkon

That works, but as a footnote I would add that the central element isn't tolerance as such, so much as prudence and self defence. In other words, by shifting the burden of the decision to a different ethical dimension, the general principle of tolerance can remain unchallenged.

@jankoekepan @shadowfirebird @Aarkon
Well yes. Put another way: I've removed the paradox.
The central Q is how you define "tolerance". Is it "I don't agree but I must let you say that" or is it "I assume that that is as true in your experience as this conflicting idea is in my experience"?
I know which I think is more robust, more ethical paradigm: the second, which, yes, dictates moving toleration to a meta level.
But, obviously, that's just what I think!

@shadowfirebird @Aarkon

The first case is granting all persons equal civil liberties vis-a-vis speech, action and so on. The second case just seems like an assumption that someone else is a rational being with different experiences, and contains no inherent mandates.

So the first actually strikes me as more ethically robust in that it contains, and constrains, the mandates but also delineates where self-defence (i.e. where the counterparty doesn't reciprocate) starts.

@jankoekepan @shadowfirebird @Aarkon
And yet a while ago you were saying it was a slippery slope? That seems like a contradiction to me, but if you are holding those two as canon at the same time, okay.

@shadowfirebird @Aarkon

Popper's argument is the slippery slope argument, and thus conditionally valid at best (hinges on the inevitability of the slip). I reject that argument.

The following discussion had more robust structures, that I did not reject.

@dulcet @Aarkon @shadowfirebird

I'll admit that sounds more like Popper, in which case my gripe is with the cartoon.

@jankoekepan @dulcet @Aarkon @shadowfirebird I think this is one of the most interesting questions of our times. I read about quite successful covert operations of Polish political police in 1930s against international communists seeking to impose Stalinist dominance. The very fact of having political police is scary, but the experience shows that civil liberties will not defend themselves. But that can be used so easy to suppress dissent of any kind.

@saper @dulcet @Aarkon @shadowfirebird

In my experience you don't need political police for the job, as long as you have transparency in courts and enforcement.

@jankoekepan @saper @dulcet @Aarkon @shadowfirebird
@rysiek

regarding tolerance:

I think the problem is that people treat tolerance as a boolean (either you're tolerant or not), and as an absolutely positive thing. OTOH, tolerance is more like a vector.

One can be tolerant of some things, and intolerant of others. Moreover, there are some things we shouldn't be tolerant of.

Should we tolerate people being wrong on the internet? Probably yes.
Should we tolerate theft? Probably not.