|
Post by conspirologist on Aug 26, 2017 14:47:41 GMT
The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. Tolerance is the inability to withstand physiologically or psychologically something harmful. Tolerance is allowing or accepting without any kind of defense: The victim tolerated being abused. Intolerance is the ability to withstand physiologically or psychologically something harmful. Intolerance is resisting or opposing by any means of defense: The victim avoided being abused. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2017 15:02:42 GMT
The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. Tolerance is the inability to withstand physiologically or psychologically something harmful. Tolerance is allowing or accepting without any kind of defense: The victim tolerated being abused. Intolerance is the ability to withstand physiologically or psychologically something harmful. Intolerance is resisting or opposing by any means of defense: The victim avoided being abused. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toleranceI think he's right - which is why I had no problem with that guy who punched the Neo-Nazi on camera.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Aug 31, 2017 5:58:36 GMT
Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. But if it is intolerant towards intolerance, it ceases to be tolerant. Which, of course is the heart of the paradox. The same can be said about democracies too.
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Aug 31, 2017 11:59:02 GMT
Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. But if it is intolerant towards intolerance, it ceases to be tolerant. Which, of course is the heart of the paradox. The same can be said about democracies too. You are confusing democracy with idiocracy.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 1, 2017 21:26:24 GMT
Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. But if it is intolerant towards intolerance, it ceases to be tolerant. Which, of course is the heart of the paradox. The same can be said about democracies too. If a democracy , then it ceases to be a democracy? Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Sept 1, 2017 22:36:19 GMT
But if it is intolerant towards intolerance, it ceases to be tolerant. Which, of course is the heart of the paradox. The same can be said about democracies too. If a democracy , then it ceases to be a democracy? Please explain. It's not a democracy unless it lets people vote on all political aspects, such as thoroughly undemocratic political views such as Fascism, Nazism or Communism. If any of them are banned from taking office, it's not really a democracy any more, yet letting them be a part of the democratic process presents a very real danger of destroying that democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 2, 2017 0:27:32 GMT
If a democracy , then it ceases to be a democracy? Please explain. It's not a democracy unless it lets people vote on all political aspects, such as thoroughly undemocratic political views such as Fascism, Nazism or Communism. If any of them are banned from taking office, it's not really a democracy any more, yet letting them be a part of the democratic process presents a very real danger of destroying that democracy. Thanks for that clarity. However I might take a different POV. A democracy is based upon the constitution which creates it, and a democracy is limited by that constitution. For example a representative democracy has more limits to peoples direct participation than a direct democracy. Going further, if the constitution has as its aim not so much acting on the will of the people but to create a stable society where peoples freedoms of action are enhanced, reducing freedom of speech such as Germany does, reduces the chance of another Nazi regime and thus reduces the chance of minorities being victimised. Using that analogy to return to the OPs theme of tolerance, all societies have rules, and a tolerant society surely must distinguish between tolerance for speech and tolerance for violence. Then the society must decide where such activities like Nazis lie, who advocate physical violence towards others even if they claim personal non violence.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Sept 2, 2017 2:59:00 GMT
It's not a democracy unless it lets people vote on all political aspects, such as thoroughly undemocratic political views such as Fascism, Nazism or Communism. If any of them are banned from taking office, it's not really a democracy any more, yet letting them be a part of the democratic process presents a very real danger of destroying that democracy. Thanks for that clarity. However I might take a different POV. A democracy is based upon the constitution which creates it, and a democracy is limited by that constitution. For example a representative democracy has more limits to peoples direct participation than a direct democracy. Going further, if the constitution has as its aim not so much acting on the will of the people but to create a stable society where peoples freedoms of action are enhanced, reducing freedom of speech such as Germany does, reduces the chance of another Nazi regime and thus reduces the chance of minorities being victimised. Using that analogy to return to the OPs theme of tolerance, all societies have rules, and a tolerant society surely must distinguish between tolerance for speech and tolerance for violence. Then the society must decide where such activities like Nazis lie, who advocate physical violence towards others even if they claim personal non violence. Not every democracy has a constitution. The United Kingdom, Israel or Canada don't as a few examples.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Dec 13, 2017 23:23:35 GMT
The stereotypical racist is someone who wants to be around his own kind. If he has that, heβs satisfied. The stereotypical progressive on the other hand, cannot permit segregation anywhere. Itβs not enough for him that he can mix freely any way he chooses. He is morally compelled to force you to do the same, like a modern evangelical missionary. Now which one of those two is intolerant? Karl Popper is playing a word game. Heβs defining tolerance in a self serving way. Itβs not a virtue. To tolerate means to put up with something you donβt like. It conveys powerlessness to affect youβre situation. Labeling one side as tolerant and the other as intolerant is just a rhetorical way of giving yourself the moral upper hand, which paradoxically makes you the worse of the two sides. At least the other is honest about their motivations.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Mar 19, 2019 2:06:52 GMT
In the same vein, how long will a free society remain free if their freedoms extend to the ability for some to become oppressive oligarchs?
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm π on Apr 19, 2019 21:36:09 GMT
The stereotypical racist is someone who wants to be around his own kind. If he has that, heβs satisfied. The stereotypical progressive on the other hand, cannot permit segregation anywhere. Itβs not enough for him that he can mix freely any way he chooses. He is morally compelled to force you to do the same, like a modern evangelical missionary. Now which one of those two is intolerant? Karl Popper is playing a word game. Heβs defining tolerance in a self serving way. Itβs not a virtue. To tolerate means to put up with something you donβt like. It conveys powerlessness to affect youβre situation. Labeling one side as tolerant and the other as intolerant is just a rhetorical way of giving yourself the moral upper hand, which paradoxically makes you the worse of the two sides. At least the other is honest about their motivations. Popper is a player!
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 21, 2019 19:33:35 GMT
βA nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."β Marcus Tullius Cicero
I don't know who said this but:
βThe universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive.β βNo universal altruism has evolved because a sense of universal altruism would have no evolutionary advantage.β βA world without borders or distinctions is impossible, because groups that practice unlimited altruism will be eliminated in favor of those that limit altruistic behavior to smaller groups, from whom they receive benefits.β
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 22, 2019 10:09:26 GMT
I don't know who said this but: βThe universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive.β Whoever said this knows jack shit about evolutionary biology. "Kin selection" is a very specific process, it doesn't "develop" in a species but is rather an evolutionary mechanism, and the idea that evolutionary psychology "suggested" it gets things completely backwards. In fact, Darwin himself suggested something resembling kin selection, though it was not mathematically codified and named until the 60's, which is before that branch of crackpot pseudoscience known as evolutionary psychology came to be.
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm π on Apr 25, 2019 8:06:49 GMT
βA nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."β Marcus Tullius Cicero I don't know who said this but: βThe universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive.β βNo universal altruism has evolved because a sense of universal altruism would have no evolutionary advantage.β βA world without borders or distinctions is impossible, because groups that practice unlimited altruism will be eliminated in favor of those that limit altruistic behavior to smaller groups, from whom they receive benefits.β And people are born at different times.
|
|