What is the “paradox of tolerance” and is it legit?
In: 1208
The paradox of tolerance basically says that for a society to remain a tolerant society, it must be intolerant of intolerant views. It seems like a paradox because you’d assume in a tolerant society, *literally* anything goes, including people hosting intolerant views.
However, the paradox claims that if a tolerant society allows intolerant views, it will, eventually crumble and die because of the spread/growth of the intolerant views (which, you know, makes sense). Thus, a tolerant society must “paradoxically” be intolerant to this one specific viewpoint for it to remain a tolerant society.
Is it legit? Idk. At least, it makes sense to me. It’s really more of a rhetorical device used against bad-faith arguments when discussing liberties, free will, rights, and tolerance in society.
The paradox of tolerance basically says that for a society to remain a tolerant society, it must be intolerant of intolerant views. It seems like a paradox because you’d assume in a tolerant society, *literally* anything goes, including people hosting intolerant views.
However, the paradox claims that if a tolerant society allows intolerant views, it will, eventually crumble and die because of the spread/growth of the intolerant views (which, you know, makes sense). Thus, a tolerant society must “paradoxically” be intolerant to this one specific viewpoint for it to remain a tolerant society.
Is it legit? Idk. At least, it makes sense to me. It’s really more of a rhetorical device used against bad-faith arguments when discussing liberties, free will, rights, and tolerance in society.
The Paradox of Intolerance explains that even tolerance must have limits; otherwise society rapidly becomes intolerant.
To put it another way: if you value free speech, you must oppose Naziism. Nazis are pretty famously anti-free speech; so if you really value the ability for people to openly criticize the government, you must shut down Nazis when you see them.
The paradox of tolerance is the idea that in order to get rid of intolerance, the best thing is to be intolerant *of* intolerance, instead of simply tolerating everything. And yes, it is legit.
The simple example I was given is, if you have a population of sheep and a handful of wolves that prey on the sheep, and you make a space 100% accepting of both wolves and sheep, you have a space only for wolves.
A more direct example, if you make a space fully open to both LGBTQ+ and extreme anti-LGBTQ+, and give each full reign/free speech without repercussion or moderation, you do *not* actually have a space LGBTQ+ are welcome in.
The paradox of tolerance is the idea that in order to get rid of intolerance, the best thing is to be intolerant *of* intolerance, instead of simply tolerating everything. And yes, it is legit.
The simple example I was given is, if you have a population of sheep and a handful of wolves that prey on the sheep, and you make a space 100% accepting of both wolves and sheep, you have a space only for wolves.
A more direct example, if you make a space fully open to both LGBTQ+ and extreme anti-LGBTQ+, and give each full reign/free speech without repercussion or moderation, you do *not* actually have a space LGBTQ+ are welcome in.
The Paradox of Intolerance explains that even tolerance must have limits; otherwise society rapidly becomes intolerant.
To put it another way: if you value free speech, you must oppose Naziism. Nazis are pretty famously anti-free speech; so if you really value the ability for people to openly criticize the government, you must shut down Nazis when you see them.
>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 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.
So there’s a lot of back & forth in this section and it has to be considered within the context that Karl Popper wrote this in. His Open Society book was first published in 1945 shortly after the Nazi regime ended. If you read it as “a tolerant democratic society must be intolerant towards thugs with guns who refuse to participate in the democratic process”, then yes it is legit.
Unfortunately the recent Internet revival of that phrase is using it in bad faith as “it’s okay if I am intolerant because my opponents disagree with me”. Fortunately there is a Popper quote for that one as well – something he wrote 30 years later:
>There can be no human society without conflict: such a society would be a society not of friends but of ants.”
>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 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.
So there’s a lot of back & forth in this section and it has to be considered within the context that Karl Popper wrote this in. His Open Society book was first published in 1945 shortly after the Nazi regime ended. If you read it as “a tolerant democratic society must be intolerant towards thugs with guns who refuse to participate in the democratic process”, then yes it is legit.
Unfortunately the recent Internet revival of that phrase is using it in bad faith as “it’s okay if I am intolerant because my opponents disagree with me”. Fortunately there is a Popper quote for that one as well – something he wrote 30 years later:
>There can be no human society without conflict: such a society would be a society not of friends but of ants.”
In a nutshell it is a line of reasoning that tolerance of intolerance leads to a net loss of freedom. On its surface it sounds very reasonable.
The pragmatic issue with it is folks on both sides of most issues can equally invoke it. “You are intolerant of people who feel and think like I do” creates a really muddy view for the type of intolerance we as a society should be avoiding. Do we want to avoid intolerance of traditional values or avoid intolerance of progressive values or intolerance of those who deride the other side as inherently evil.
A really good example is the social revolution in Iran. I’m definitely with the progressives on this one but will put that aside for a moment. If I am a progressive I say the fundamentalists are showing intolerance of our rights to dress as we see fit. If I am a fundamentalist I say the progressives are showing intolerance of those who wish to live by traditional values and don’t wish to be exposed to indecency. Whatever side of the issue you start on, the paradox of tolerance is easily purposed for suppression of the other side. As such it generally isn’t a useful tool beyond justifying unsocial acts against people who hold other views.
In a nutshell it is a line of reasoning that tolerance of intolerance leads to a net loss of freedom. On its surface it sounds very reasonable.
The pragmatic issue with it is folks on both sides of most issues can equally invoke it. “You are intolerant of people who feel and think like I do” creates a really muddy view for the type of intolerance we as a society should be avoiding. Do we want to avoid intolerance of traditional values or avoid intolerance of progressive values or intolerance of those who deride the other side as inherently evil.
A really good example is the social revolution in Iran. I’m definitely with the progressives on this one but will put that aside for a moment. If I am a progressive I say the fundamentalists are showing intolerance of our rights to dress as we see fit. If I am a fundamentalist I say the progressives are showing intolerance of those who wish to live by traditional values and don’t wish to be exposed to indecency. Whatever side of the issue you start on, the paradox of tolerance is easily purposed for suppression of the other side. As such it generally isn’t a useful tool beyond justifying unsocial acts against people who hold other views.
Latest Answers