do evil games expect evil prizes, thank you Rainer Forst

edit: this is a pedagogical post, not a philosophical one. i actually fully agree with the paradox of tolerance and its conclusion! i just find that it doesn’t work as well as an educational tool for introducing people to the concept. sorry for any confusion :)

  • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
    0·
    14 days ago

    Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Karl Popper, 2 sentences after defining the paradox of tolerance he shows an easy answer to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      1·
      14 days ago

      right, so if it’s a problem that’s always had an easy answer, why do i hear about the problem all the damn time 😡

      name one other example of a “paradox” being used as justification or argument for something. you can’t, because there’s a sense of instability inherent in the term; a proper logical paradox actually has no solution.

      so why do we fall back so quickly and consistently to the “paradox” as an explanation for perhaps the single most important concept in ethical philosophy when it comes to community preservation and mitigation of violence?

      it’s rhetorically inefficient. no one actually thinks about paradoxes in this fashion, so it doesn’t make for a compelling argument. imagine if queer advocates were like “yeah technically it’s like, totally natural for just males and females to experience mutual attraction, but some don’t. a paradox! 🤯” nobody would buy it. instead we say “sexual orientation, while most common in the male-female reciprocation, is diverse such that male-male and female-female attraction also exist throughout nature.”

      likewise: “tolerance is a social contract. violate the contract, society has the right to intervene.” boom. done and dusted. enough of the sophistry. enough of the sophistication olympics. use arguments that convince people, not ones that makes you sound smart.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        14 days ago

        It’s called a paradox because it is unsolveable… if you are a free speech absolutist.

        The point he’s getting at is that absolute tolerance is not only bad; it’s impossible. A society that tolerates absolutely everything - the kind free speech absolutists claim to envision - will inevitably become less and less tolerant over time, because the intolerant members of that society will abuse those freedoms to create more intolerance.

        Its framed the way it is because Poppler is essentially responding to those people who invoke the slippery slope to argue that you cannot ever censor anything, because then how do you decide what not to censor? Poppler replies “Here’s how.”

        If it helps you to frame it better, call it the “paradox of absolute tolerance” or the “paradox of perfect tolerance.”

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
          1·
          14 days ago

          totally. thank you for your insight and i fully agree for the record.

          but you needed four paragraphs to explain the “paradox”. that is a surefire signifier that is maybe not rhetorically the best fit for the role of convincing people deplatforming nazis is good…

          again, i’m criticizing the tool. i’m fully in alignment with what it does, there’s just so many better ways to say it.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
      1·
      14 days ago

      It’s more shorthand for the absurdity of tolerating intolerance. It’s a paradox of absolute tolerance, not of reality. It’s not meant to be unsolvable in practice, only unsolvable within the frameworks of spineless moderates.

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        0·
        14 days ago

        Usually used by people who think it is adequate to respond to words that hurt their feelings with physical violence

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          1·
          13 days ago

          By hurt my feelings, you mean promise to enact violence on me with the law?

          I’m afraid that when it comes to fascists, violence isn’t adequate; It’s necessary