A tolerant society, cannot tolerate the intolerant.
What say you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Paradox of Tolerance
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
A tolerant society, cannot tolerate the intolerant.
What say you?
Augustus
…
I'd say it is very important to define what is meant by 'intolerant' before supporting such a statement.
People rarely do this.
I would say anything that harms, degrades, dehumanizes or puts down another, due to perceived differences, real or imagined, is intolerance IMO.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It widely depends on the measures that are used against the intolerant. Using too much force against them makes the society (more) intolerant themselves. Using too little risks that the intolerant destroy the tolerant society.
That's mostly the point, I think. It is unfortunately, paradoxical.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I wouldn't call it paradoxical. It's a question of balance.
Is "drinking water is good for you" a paradoxical statement? Drinking about 1,5 litres a day is good for you. Drinking 4 litres in as many minutes can kill you.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Being tolerant does not mean tolerating everything.
Augustus
…
I think that is not a high enough bar for what Popper meant. The paradox requires a genuine threat to the tolerant society i.e. systemic risk. Simple bigotry does not create such a risk, and so should be condemned within the framework of the tolerant society.
The intention was more about people using their protected rights to create a system that removes these rights from others. Basically, it is a form of reciprocity.
So a fascist party trying to use democratic means to end democracy should not be tolerated for example.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Or a merely bigoted party trying to use democratic means to enforce its bigotry with the force of law, such as e.g. institutional discrimination of ethnic/ religious groups or LGBTQ people.
That seems to be the point the Paradox is conveying.
Augustus
…
That would make them more than merely bigoted...
Self governance is one extreme. Absolute conformity is the other extreme. The language fails to cover every situation, so you need reasonable judges, reasonable precedents, precedents which are in the interest of self governance but not chaos.
What I mean is that its difficult to legislate an exact specification for tolerance that will allow freedom and keep out destructive forces. The laws are practical but not flawless.
I don't see it as a matter of "tolerance." There word "tolerance" does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. I see it as a matter of following a consistent set of principles. If a society claims to follow certain principles of freedom - such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press - then that would be the expectation.
If someone says "freedom of religion does not apply to Muslims, because they do not practice freedom of religion themselves," then it would still be a violation of our own principles, regardless of what the Muslims do.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
(- Edmund Burke)
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
(- John Stuart Mill)
(- Edmund Burke)
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
(- John Stuart Mill)
What does it mean to tolerate & to not tolerate?
This whole discussion is as useful as nailing mayonaise to a wall.
These are good quotes, although what occurs to me about the subject matter of the OP is the part that's often left out.
Bad men triumph mainly because "good men" create conditions of deprivation and predation which generate resentment and desperation among the masses.
When people are desperate enough, they'll go along with anything. There is no real "paradox of tolerance" as much as there's a lack of understanding regarding cause-and-effect. As long as the people are well-fed and provided for, there will be few problems. But if the powers that be want to squeeze the lower classes, push them further into impoverishment, or create conditions where they have to carry wheelbarrows full of money to the market to buy a loaf of bread, then there will be further problems.
It's really a simple equation, and if we'd just stick to things that mattered, then we wouldn't have to wring our hands over "tolerating intolerance." It wouldn't even be relevant.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Which is why the ownership (and hence control) of the media is vital, to keep the people at the circus, placated, accepting of the wheelbarrows.