←back to thread

1444 points feross | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.618s | source
Show context
eyear ◴[] No.32646444[source]
Where is the diversity we advocate? Must the whole world accept one value? We accept homosexuality so we won't accept other people like Muslims not accepting it? So WE are definitely right and people who are different from us are absolutely wrong?
replies(7): >>32646456 #>>32646459 #>>32646486 #>>32646954 #>>32647043 #>>32647357 #>>32647934 #
Spivak ◴[] No.32647043[source]
The paradox of tolerance isn’t really a paradox, it’s a proof by contradiction that the naive notion of tolerance is not sound.

Homosexuality is a natural observable phenomenon in the human species across time and cultures. It is an aspect of people as fundamental as height or skin tone. Not accepting them for any reason is intolerance and does not have to be tolerated. It is also intolerance to not accept Muslims, but you do not have to tolerate any intolerance that manifests from their beliefs.

People are not tolerant or intolerant, specific views held by and actions done by people are.

You don’t need values to reason about tolerance.

replies(1): >>32647242 #
jlawson ◴[] No.32647242[source]
You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it.

The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance.

When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop others from expressing different beliefs - nothing else. He did NOT mean "intolerance" of any particular skin tone, or sexual behavior, identity group, etc.

This is important because intolerance of sexual behavior doesn't structurally break the system of discussion and truth-finding that we use. You could jail every blue-eyed person, just was we jail people who commit certain crimes, but as long as everyone can speak then our system for collective truth-seeking still works. The ONLY meaning for the word "intolerance" that breaks that is intolerance of free speech, and that's the only kind of intolerance that Popper said needs to be suppressed with force. And he was right.

I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.

replies(3): >>32648075 #>>32648199 #>>32648526 #
1. gopiandcode ◴[] No.32648199[source]
> I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.

Yeah, it really is sad to see people so eager to embrace authoritarian sensibilities like this. The paradox of tolerence has seemingly become a buzzword without meaning, perverted beyond its original intent; a simple facade that enables people to feel self-justified about their own intolerance while still allowing them to claim progressive ideals.

replies(1): >>32656499 #
2. int_19h ◴[] No.32656499[source]
"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

- George Orwell, "Freedom of the Press" (1945)

Note that this predates Popper's paradox.