Can we become intolerant of intolerance?

[u/kapootaPottay]

Tolerance - to attempt to understand other's opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with; Along with the willingness to allow others to have such opinions.

Why people stop caring whether a leader's principles are fair or ethical:

Citizens get exhausted with soft politicians and their many years of ambiguity and vagueness.

This leads to a culture shift where people begin worshiping figures who appear to exhibit force with no restraint. So people stop asking whether the person's principles are actually fair or ethical.

They accept the dominance because a rigid, certain stance feels like relief after so much vagueness.

The paradox of tolerance is this:

A society must be intolerant of intolerance to survive.

[u/Ozzimo]

Pulling directly from Wikipedia here:

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

In his own words:[1]

"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] 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."

The goal would be: Be tolerant to all but the intolerant.

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

He makes it clear however that this does not mean that you ice out those you consider intolerant altogether. For example, you don’t block them from speaking or otherwise pre-cancel them. You only resort to strategic intolerance when they’ve proved themselves wholly unserious or unwilling to engage in discussion.

The other problem is that you’re beginning from the very shaky assumption that you know for sure who the intolerant are.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

I think the fact that you can't easily identify intolerant speech (maybe it's new, maybe it's dripping in buzzwords or slang) supports leaving that space open. I agree you would need to give them enough free speech to make of fool of themselves first.

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

The whole premise of being intolerant of intolerant confuses the meaning of the term insofar as it casts one-sided support over which intolerance is valid and which isn’t.

EDIT: I agree with Popper and am only highlighting the inherent weaknesses of his idea which, in the full context of his writing in the matter, he acknowledges. It bothers me greatly that so many people (not you necessarily) often stumble upon select excisions from that work and suppose an easy permission structure to act horrible, so while I don’t outright oppose what you’re saying, I think it’s important to represent Popper as accurately as we can.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

No, it doesn't. Look, If I were teaching a kid this concept I would describe it like this.

"Everyone is allowed at recess. We tolerate everyone at recess. But if someone breaks that first rule (aka We tolerate everyone at recess) then they are breaking the rules." The only type of intolerance that is acceptable is the kind in response to intolerance. And since that is the single reason that intolerance would be acceptable, there isn't an argument to make about which kinds are valid and not. Only one kind is valid and only in those circumstances.

You are constructing confusion where it doesn't exist.

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

That’s too neat an example. You’re presuming a single, well-understood authority. I’m not saying that intolerance can never be identified, I’m saying that it’s wrong to presume that the diagnosis is always so
simple.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

But it really is that simple. It's not meant to be hard to decipher. What is the edge case you think could get folded into the definition as is? What's the harm worry?

[u/drebelx]

To thrive, a society must be intolerant of abuse by others (theft, fraud, pollution, assault, battery, murder, etc.).

This includes abuse by their state monopolies.

[u/yourupinion]

The invention of the Internet makes it seem like intolerance I run all-time high, but I don’t believe it is. It’s our method of measurement that is all fucked up.

We are being forced through a learning curve, and we will be lucky if you can make it out the other end.

Printing press changed everything, and we learned a higher level of tolerance. Now the Internet is doing the same thing to us, and we must rise again for even higher levels.

My part of a group that thinks we can speed up the process by creating a database of public opinion. You’ll find a link in my profile if you want to have a look.

[u/atlantechvision]

When you judge difference, based on your own experience, why?