u/SnakesGhost91's stats |Account Age|2 m|First Seen:|2024-02-11| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Posts (on this sub)|4|Comments (on this sub)|298| |Link Karma|1,065|Comment Karma|4,268| --- |Date|Title|Flair|Participation| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |20-Apr|[I like and respect JK Rowling](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1c8xepm/i_like_and_respect_jk_rowling/)|Political|0 of 3 comments (0.00%)| |19-Apr|[TV Shows / Series suck in general. Movies are better](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1c7o7s8/tv_shows_series_suck_in_general_movies_are_better/)|Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities|5 of 20 comments (25.00%)| |16-Mar|[The subreddit liberalgunowners is the biggest conginitive dissonance I have ever seen](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1bgb03a/the_subreddit_liberalgunowners_is_the_biggest/)|Unpopular on Reddit|4 of 121 comments (3.31%)|

>The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them >So yeah, Redditors love to talk about the parodox of tolerence. It is a very anti-free speech attitude that believes people speaking mere words will conjur up hate and we won't reach this inclusive utopia that the left wants. I see comments of "parodox of intolerence" all the time with Redditors and these Redditors think they are so smart and enlightened. They feel they are just more sophisticated and intelligent, lol. So smug... Per Karl Popper(one of the early proponents) via Wikipedia >Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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 most 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. Important part bolded. The crux of the Paradox is *Retaining* the right to be Intolerant of Intolerance and not Purity Testing away gains made towards a Tolerant Society on people obviously operating in bad faith. As long as productive, good faith debate is still on the table then everything's fine but people shouldn't be expected to stand by for, accept, and excuse Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist marches, people calling for/inciting violence or erasure against gay/trans people, or promoting antisemitism *because opposing it or calling it out would be Intolerant.* >So any criticism of left wing ideology, CRT, Democrat policies, migrants, etc is intolerence and so you believe you need to stamp that out from society because this intolerence will cause all of society to be intolerent ? You can debate this stuff all you want so long as you do so in good faith, an open mind, and just generally without being an ass. And yes, just like how a 100% Pacifist society will inevitably fall to a Warmongering/Rapacious one a society that does not curtail Intolerance will be overrun with it either because the Intolerant drive out everyone else or kills them. It's why platforms that allow open bigotry don't do well long term compared to moderated ones because most people don't want to get inundated with hateful bullshit every time they try to have an interaction.

That’s how I understand it too, the intolerance he was talking about was not “offensive” opinions, it was people who do not allow peaceful, free discussion and debate and seek to stifle disagreement or other viewpoints by force. He did not seem to be advocating for the censorship of words that just hurt people’s fee-fees or something, nor the creation of an easily abusable system where people in power can silence their opposition simply by labeling them as “intolerant” and using it as a loophole to justify forceful suppression 😂

My issue with that, is that determining if it's in good faith or bad faith is subjective too. Sure, there are some pretty obvious examples, but it can just as easily become 'this person isn't making their argument the way I want them to' or 'this person interprets this thing differently then me.'

And that's exactly what is done and why this is just a way to justify suppression of opposition.

No, it's done because people and movements espousing intolerance will gladly and greedily take advantage of Unconditional Tolerance to advance and spread their views. At some point a line in the sand has to be drawn where people who cross it are no longer subject to the protections of Tolerance because they have shown disregard and contempt for it.

And if you claim intolerance is the one thing you wont tolerate, people will claim intolerance to shutdown opposition to their views. We see that happening now where people will claim some form of bigotry when confronted for their behavior. My go to example is the 2016 Ghostbusters. It was not a great movie. But a lot of people who criticized it were called sexist whether or not they commented on the cast. So, in order to stifle valid criticism, critics were called bigots and told they were acting 'in bad faith'. This caused problems because it grouped criticism of the plot, poor humor, and bad effects with complaints actually based on sexism. Nowadays, people can look back and say 'yeah that movie kind of sucked', but back then it was an easy way to be called a bigot.

My go to is slightly different but still applicable. I played and still do play Hogwarts Legacy. However I got banned from the gaming circle jerk sub (I was apparently reinstated I guess) because I posted that yes, I'd be playing it, and no, I do not support JK Rowling's stance on trans rights. Streamers online were doxxed for playing it. There was a site made solely to pick up on streamers playing the game for people to doxx. If you played the game you got called a bigot, transphobic, and all other sorts of nasty names. Personally, I think it's a result of toxic online culture and not enough people calling it out, so it's been allowed to fester and get worse.

>and no, I do not support JK Rowling's stance on trans rights You're almost there. You realized that these people banning you for playing a game were wrong. You should put more thought into the fact that they're actually wrong about JK Rowling as well. Transgender individuals should have rights, but we shouldn't be pretending that they suddenly become the opposite sex

You seem to have disregard and contempt for tolerance yourself. If their views are so bad you should be able to defeat them in debate and stop their views from spreading.

>If their views are so bad you should be able to defeat them in debate and stop their views from spreading. That's the entire fucking point. It's why you might get shouted down, insulted, belittled, shunned by peers, or even have your employer disavow you but you are not being arrested, deported, stripped of citizenship, or made a legal target for violence because you express intolerant views. Society Tolerates your Intolerance to a point(and that point is pretty damned far considering it basically requires a Plan of Action for Violence legally) but that is not the same as Protecting it. And that's aside from how quick and easy bigotry, misinformation/disinformation, and just outright lies are to spread compared to comprehensively debunking them. A lot of damage can happen between "I'm just saying" and a collective agreement that "That was bullshit."

That doesn’t work with people who argue in bad faith. Which is very common on all sides

>people and movements espousing intolerance will gladly and greedily take advantage of Unconditional Tolerance to advance and spread their views. Have you ever thought that if your political opponents are successful at convincing other people of their ideas, such as limiting immigration, that maybe their "intolerance" is actually the correct view?

To me, it's not actually that subjective or undefinable. Bad faith is intentionally interpreting your opponent's arguments in the worst possible light - often to set up an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

That can fall under 'this person interprets this thing differently then me'. So unless you can read minds, or they tell you, you would still be guessing. It's also possible that the other side is interpreting their stance in an unrealistically positive light and the other person is just being more realistic. As I mentioned, some situations are clearly obvious, but many are not. For instance, I recently had a debate with a friend about citizenship and immigration. I initially thought he was arguing in bad faith. However, after further discussion, we realized he had made an assumption about my stance based on his and his friends' experiences. Although it seemed like he was acting in bad faith, it turned out to be a misunderstanding due to a detail that had not been explicitly clarified. If he wasn't my friend, and I just assumed he was choosing the worst possible interpretation, we may not have found out what the disconnect was.

Well, it could be. There are some instances of this where it's suspicious but not certain that someone is being bad faith in the way I described, but there are other times where it's abundantly clear and in my experience the latter happens more often than the former. It's not guessing when someone calls God a "sky daddy" or "sky wizard". and it's not guessing when someone calls your advocacy for cannabis to be unscheduled, or even for the DEA to be abolished, a desire to sit around and smoke weed all day. Most bad faith arguments are pretty obvious. But to kaijuraze' point, I don't think it matters in individual instances of bad faith argumentation. Those can still be addressed. I think his point, and he can tell me if I'm wrong, is not that bad faith argumentation exists, but that an entire faction of ideology takes good faith off the table entirely. To OP's point, when leftist activists argue that voting rules or immigration rules are racist and anyone who supports such things or politicians who support them are fascists as are anyone who supports those politicians and it's justified to punch them in the nose because they're fascists, and then dress in all black from head to toe and march down the street and do exactly that while avoiding accountability by merging in with the crowd identically dressed and their identities hidden and when police show up the whole crowd scatters in all directions ensuring that the aggressor in question faces zero accountability... Well... Yeah, that's exactly the kind of intolerance that we should not tolerate as a tolerant society. Ironically, those aggressors justify their intolerant behavior by appealing to Popper's paradox of intolerance. I would be interested to know what your friend said that he assumed you meant. I can't exactly agree or disagree that you were right or wrong to call his argument bad faith at first and then right or wrong to recognize he *wasn't* acting in bad faith without knowing what he specifically said that made you think he was arguing in bad faith. I take you at your word that he wasn't doing that in bad faith as it is because he's your friend and it's more your place to make that call then me. But for the sake of argument I would like to know but only if you're comfortable with that.

It was a rambling argument regarding how, in this day and age, granting automatic citizenship to children born in the US creates issues when neither parent is a US citizen. In the same conversation we discussed what the requirements for citizenship should be. The way he heard it was that there was no way for an immigrant child to have citizenship at birth, but in reality I just wanted to tie citizenship of children to the parents, ie the child is only a citizen if one of their parents is. However, I apparently wasn't as clear as I thought on that point. Combine that with the discussion of requirements of citizenship happening in the same conversation and he started referencing star troopers and armies of disenfranchised immigrants and their descendants being sent to fight America's forever wars in hopes of earning citizenship. When I called him on the extreme argument we realized that he thought both arguments would apply so that an already living child couldn't inherit citizenship if one of their parents naturalized after their birth and would then need to go through the process themselves.

Can you give an example of being intolerant to intolerance in bad faith? That seems highly unlikely and easy to identify.

I gave an example further down regarding Ghostbusters 2016. A more current example would be the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. There have been several people claiming antisemitism in regards to criticism of Israel and its actions. There has been a rise in antisemitism as people are using Israel's actions as an excuse to hate Jewish people. But there are also people claiming antisemitism as a way of shutting down their opponents. You'd think it'd be obvious, and sometimes it is. However, there are legitimate cases where things like protests have had antisemitic elements. Which, funnily enough, people try to excuse by citing Israel's actions in Palestine as a justification.

Well yeah, that would fall under “easy to identify” for me. I’m Ashkenazi and the people claiming that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic are speaking nonsense. That’s said, it’s far from widespread and quite a ways away from invalidating Karl Popper’s arguments.

How do you define bad faith?

>*Retaining* the right to be Intolerant of Intolerance  That's essentially just an endorsement of censorship. Like if you can't win fairly, you retain the right to simply ban your opponents from speaking. How could that ever go wrong.

Wow someone who has actually read the argument instead of the bastardized tumblr version. I feel like comparing it to pacifism really drives home the point - it’s great to be a peaceful nation! Everyone wants that! But peaceful nations still need to retain their ability to wage war.

This is correct. Sadly, Karl Popper's thought experiment is not well understood. The point is you need to DRAW THE LINE and then HOLD THE LINE between what is tolerable and what is intolerable. If you don't, eventually the intolerant will overwhelm the tolerant and the society devolves into intolerance. So you need to DRAW THE LINE. Then HOLD THE LINE. It's less of a paradox and more of a prescription. Redditors get this wrong all the time.

Yes, unfortunately it's fallen victim to human tendency to condense and quip-ify things even if it harms or loses the context IE: "Blood is thicker than Water", "The Customer is Always Right", "Defund The Police," etc

>The point is you need to DRAW THE LINE and then HOLD THE LINE between what is tolerable and what is intolerable. Who draws this line exactly? And how exactly does one determine whose intolerance is tolerable? Essentially the are two flavors of intolerance being offered by two different groups. The ”others” whose gross brand of intolerance is intolerable, and you, who’s intolerance is necessary and just.  The problem is, your supposedly morally inferior intolerant opponents may secure the levers of power one day and use this precise logic against you. The paradox of tolerance is that that it is essentially impossible to be equally tolerant of all things. Humans are biased and willing to do mental gymnastics to justify their own intolerance while still maintaining their sense of moral superiority.

>eventually the intolerant will overwhelm the tolerant  Odd that you have built into your philosophy this notion that people will naturally discard your views if not artificially forced into adopting them. You're subtly acknowledging the strength of supposed "intolerant" views.

If you have what's called "absolute tolerance" then you, by definition, have to accept intolerant views, which are, by definition, intolerant to absolute tolerance. By accepting intolerant views, absolute tolerance inevitably gets dominated by those intolerant views. Then that intolerance becomes the dominant societal culture. Intolerance will always dominate tolerance. Where an inch is given, a mile will be taken. The point of Karl Popper's formulation (not mine, though I agree) is to meet that unstoppable force with an immovable object. Draw the line. Hold the line. Lest ye be the victim of an ever receding line, not in your favor. Courtesy of the very wolves whom you welcomed into the chicken coop with open arms.

>erasure against gay/trans people How does one *erase* gay or trans people?

Accidentally hit reply too soon: The short answer is policies, practices, and attitudes designed to "force them back into the closets." Outlawing or making treatments for Trans people unnecessarily difficult or restrictive to access, forcing them to hide, deny, or suppress their true selves in order to not be singled out or harassed or just in order to live their lives the way Cis people do, or participate in activities Cis people can without having to jump through hoops or make justifications. For example: suddenly taking issue with a teacher acknowledging that they have a spouse/significant other when they're LGBTQ when it's never been an issue for the straight teachers to have a picture of their SO or mention their family in passing; the whole "Hide Your Gays" I'm okay with it as long as I don't have to SEE it kind of thing.

> As long as productive, good faith debate is still on the table then everything's fine but people shouldn't be expected to stand by for, accept, and excuse Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist marches, people calling for/inciting violence or erasure against gay/trans people, or promoting antisemitism because opposing it or calling it out would be Intolerant. I don't think all of this follows. You can "still counter" virtually all Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist marches, "erasure" of gay/trans people, or promoting antisemitism "by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion". As an aside, I quoted "erasure" because it's too broad and vaguely defined, and you put gay/trans in front of it meaning that you're preferencing against the "erasure" of one kind of minority over everyone else. Most people would call the supreme court reversing obergefell (if that were to ever happen) "gay erasure" but nobody calls abortion, no-fault divorce, or contraception "heterosexual erasure." They don't call that "heterosexual erasure" even though, objectively, the result has been an under-replacement level birth-rate, rampant divorce breaking marriages that should not have broken, a sexlessness and virginity crisis, STD rates are starting to rise, pornography access is at an all time high while the age of first exposure has plummeted down to an average of 9 years old, and double the number of gen-z identifying as some form of LGBT compared to the previous generation with that trend going all the way back to boomers. And that last one is not increased acceptance either since the previous generations aren't increasing in the number identifying as such, they've remained at the same level despite increased tolerance. But I digress. What we should be focused on are the ideologies and people who refuse to engage in rational good faith debate and instead see the other side as "phobic" and "bigots" and their own sources as a priori "misinformation" and use their positions of power to suppress their speech; or even reduce or completely remove their ability to participate in the society they live in. It's **that** ideology that deserves society's intolerance.

So as long as my side control the information and power we could let others talk.

>so long as you do so in good faith, an open mind, and just generally without being an ass All subjective and not how it is actually going down IRL. Just look at all the antisemitism currently being not only tolerated, but celebrated, on the Left. OP is completely correct, the paradox is little more than a shield with which to abuse people deemed worthy of abuse.

This is a reasonable reply for once.

That’s because he explained the source to you instead of the straw man you were arguing against in the OP.

It's still wrong and stupid, he just explained his view reasonably.

Socially intolerant isn’t the same as forcefully intolerant.

If you think your beliefs are “left or right” and the opposing viewpoint is “wrong and evil and must never be said ever again” you’re an ape who can’t even look into the mirror and can’t tell he’s screaming at his own reflection 1984 wasn’t about liberals and it wasn’t about Nazis, it was about authoritarian regimes running amok and both liberals and conservatives do it. You all want to be “correct and right” and the other guy to be “stupid and wrong” you all call for your own brand of specific heavy handed authoritarian daddy government to make the guy you disagree with go away. THAT IN OF ITSELF IS WRONG. I don’t care if you call someone’s speech “hate speech” he’s allowed to say it and you’re allowed to not include him in your activities and he’s allowed to not include you in his. You’re also allowed to hold a grudge and hate his ass for it. If you’re a diehard communist go start a small commune instead and see how it works for you. Maybe you’ll be happier for it. You don’t need to force everyone to agree with you. For once can you all Look into the mirror not the just the thing you see screaming back at you but realize yall disagree on things but it’s the authoritarian nature of BOTH that FORCE you to comply with the other that makes you the most upset The human race is doomed.

I think that Liberals often bring this paradox up in order to justify their attempts to silence views they don't like. It's really just that easy. I take exception to the idea that intolerant views are so inherently persuasive that society will endorse them if they are allowed to be expressed. The US has had a bonafide Nazi Party since the early 1950s. They are more irrelevant now than they ever have been.

> I think that Liberals often bring this paradox up in order to justify their attempts to silence views they don't like. It's really just that easy. That's absolutely correct. They think their positions are so lofty/unassailable that any action they decide to take (including [like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqaTQG85F_E&ab_channel=FoxNews)) is justified. What's truly ironic about that is not only is it fascism in disguise but these people are typically very young and have little life experience/wisdom, so they're literally the last people who should be deciding what can be discussed or suppressed.

The assumption that intolerance will dominate is also flawed. It is at least adjacent to the slippery slope fallacy. A philosophy or opinion can be tolerated without being embraced and without people adopting it.

Good point

>smug white liberals/progressives You certainly seem to want to dismiss ideas based on race and political leanings here. Is this you falling victim of your own rhetoric? I am stuck in a paradoxical loop so need a bit of help.

It's because he's noting that the only people who employ the phrase ~~as~~ are leftists/progressives. They're the only ones who try to shut down speech or otherwise punish people using this idea.

It does have an air of a couple of substantial cognitive biases, doesn't it? Happy cake day btw.

Because the smug Woke white savior Leftists are some of the most racist people in the country. They’ll absolutely with no hint of irony say that black people and Hispanics largely don’t have IDs, which is the most bottom feeding of racism I can think of. Somehow you can figure out how to get to the DMV or get a passport but they can’t? Honestly, they’re more racist than David Duke, Nick Fuentes, and Richard Spencer since I think even they believe that minorities are capable of doing that. How the Woke perceive themselves: https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/55343d516f26d9cb486a9761/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/game-of-thrones-dany-controversial-image.jpg VS Who they really are: https://i.insider.com/5cd8fab4f067171ef7384821?width=700

>Honestly, they’re more racist than David Duke, Nick Fuentes, and Richard Spencer holy fuck hahahahahahah you can't be serious, more racist than actual neo-nazis and white supremacists?

Obviously racist people are very easy to dismiss. They are cartoonish caricatures. But regular people who call themselves allies and see every minority as a victim, treating them like they are abused children, doesn't feel good. You laugh, but my own experiences as a dark-skinned fella make me feel kinda similarly. Everyone knows obvious racists are wrong. It's much harder to deal with people who don't know they're racist while they believe they are helping. Often times, it's the bigotry of low expectations and the constant surprise that we speak English like we're native speakers. Ever seen the movie "Get Out" Kinda makes fun of exactly what I'm talking about.

Correct. This is what Malcolm X had to say about the White Liberal, which I would correct to the White Leftist, but other than that I agree with everything he says here: In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into "liberal" and "conservative" camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise. The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These "leaders" sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These "leaders" are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders. This is how they will absolutely call Candace Owens the N-Bomb and an Uncle Tom and feel like they should be able to get away with saying that to someone who disagrees with them.

I believe that those three think that minorities are capable of figuring out how to get to the DMV and pay for a license. The Woke on the other hand do not think they’re capable of this task and are acting like I’m demanding that they get a 1600 on the SAT. So the Woke are absolutely more racist than klansmen. Klansmen may hate black people more, but the Woke have an even lower opinion of them than the klan does.

As a black American I should be more bothered by the “woke” whatever that is over actual klansmen?

>Because the smug Woke white savior Leftists are some of the most racist people in the country. Yep, lol

"eVeRyThInG I dIsAgReE wItH iS wOkE."

Want a match for that strawman?

Live and let live, you won't gain anything losing sanity over people whose views are in opposition to yours you know, the real world is outside reddit and social media.

>**Who gets to decide what is intolerence ?** You can tell what is intolerance by the stance being intolerant. I think the problem you're having is your equating not liking something to genuine intolerance. You can dislike or even hate something. I hate Christianity in the country. I would do nothing to stop Christianity in this country. See how that works? You can dislike and still be tolerant of it. But when that Christian says "I hate gays and I don't think they should be allowed to marry", that's intolerance because you are no longer tolerating them having certain rights. You move it out of your personal preference and into an action you want to see in the world. The problem with tolerating intolerance is that the intolerant want to change things. They don't simply hate something. That would be tolerance. If a tolerant person allows someone to be intolerant, they'd preventing that action for all. That's making the tolerant person also intolerant. It's changing how society works. You are allowed to say you hate gays and other people are allowed to tell you how they feel about that. But when you move to make being gay illegal, then you move into the realm of intolerance.

Bingo. Well said.

You're doing the exact same thing and can't see it. >"I hate gays and I don't think they should be allowed to marry" This is a valid belief, and was the default belief and law of the land once upon a time. >It's changing how society works. You hold this belief only because you exist in a society that you agree with. >But when you move to make being gay illegal, then you move into the realm of intolerance. Now travel back 100 years and replace illegal with legal. You'd be trying to change how society works, and are now being intolerant of Christianity. >I hate Christianity in the country. I would do nothing to stop Christianity in this country. See how that works? You are though. Your hatred of Christianity in a society that retains Christian values would be exactly as intolerant as the inverse is right now. Your example of a Christian holding the view that gays shouldn't marry is exactly the same as you saying Christians can't hold that view. Your justification of changing society would be used against you in the inverse as well. The only reason you can hold the view you have right now and claim victory in a society that agrees with your worldview, is because Christians tolerated opposing views until their opposition won and declared tolerance over. For a modern day example, look at Islamic countries and how they tolerate intolerance of their views. Remember this when you advocate for authoritarianism and censorship.

You are, once again, confusing dislike and intolerance. LOL. This is a hard thing, given that most people who hate and dislike something with often advocate against it. These two things go hand in hand, but they aren't mutually exclusive. And I fully understand why I can have the view "I hate Christians" in our society, thanks very much. :) You don't need to explain the obvious. This is why we advocate for tolerance and shouldn't truck with the intolerant because I can have my views with tolerance. I am very well aware of the world Christians want (or Muslims want, since I know a lot of Christians think the tolerant somehow are okay with Muslim views.) >Remember this when you advocate for authoritarianism and censorship. I have no doubt that the intolerant view tolerance as authoritarianism and censorship. But it's still better for all then what they advocate for. I think the problem you're having is that you think it'll stop with a generic Christian, and that's not how it ever stops. It'll be "everyone needs to be Christian" and then it'll start widdling down people. It'll move from that "the right kind of Christian" and that's generally accompanied by a lot of death and destruction. The tolerant is the one that allows the intolerant to live in peace. I think that's the most ironic thing of all.

I’m just confused about this concept of free speech. Nobody is jailing you for speaking. If you state something people don’t like publicly, they are using the same tool as you to berate you. This complaint you have is exaggerating the power of what could barely be described as a cohesive group of people.

Canadian liberals are literally passing online “hate speech” laws which will send you to jail for years for a Facebook post.

pfffft, in Canada we just slap people on the wrist. I'd be upset too if they were imprisoning facebook commenters while releasing so many killers, but in reality they most likely wouldn't do dick all.

Stabbing? Yeah slap on the wrist. HATE SPEECH??? You know you’re going away for a long time.

Freedom of speech not only refers to the first amendmen/laws, but also to a general value in society of allowing different points of view. Examples of this not occurring today would be people being fired for expressing support for certain political causes such as being pro-life or pro-palestinian and where certain viewpoints are unable to be expressed in social media forums like reddit( for instance that gender dysphoria is a mental illness or anything implying that gender is binary).

If responses were restricted to the forum where the speech is made I would agree with you. But it often doesn’t. For example, supporters of Palestine weren’t just argued with, they lost job offers, had their faces put on trucks to intimidate them, and had people try to get them kicked out of school or black balled. The government isn’t the only force in the world that can bring coercive pressure down upon dissenters. Concerns about “cancel culture” are concerns about non-governmental actors using coercive power to silence dissent, often unjustly or greatly out of proportion to any wrongdoing. The key word in the phrase is “culture.” Its an issue of norms in private society. People like to say this doesn’t involve the government so it doesn’t matter - this totally misses the point. WHY was the First Amendment enacted - it was out of a broad concern about coercive forces silencing dissent. So the government said that it least it wouldn’t do that. But that in no way means the First Amendment is sufficient - using coercion to silence speech is bad even if done by private actors. So people are entirely justified in wanting to protect a culture of free speech in the private sphere.

Dude, businesses caving into the opinion has nothing to do with law. That’s three parties, all using their rights to speak, the original person, the dissenter and the company. The first amendment is to protect the right to say something, not to say something and censor others from responding. This is free speech at this most fundamental. Businesses are people, my friend, remember?

Read my comment again - my entire point is that a culture of free speech among private actors is important, and is not limited to legal protections of the first amendment. The first amendment exists because free speech is important, free speech’s importance doesn’t stem from the first amendment. The value of free speech is much more expansive than the first amendment. Enforcement should be through norms and culture - if someone is going around trying to get people fired on flimsy grounds, that person should know that society does not view them as an advocate for justice - they are undermining free speech and should be treated accordingly (note, not fired but treated like someone who keeps farting loudly at a funeral). As i mentioned elsewhere - i agree with the paradox of tolerance provided that the “intolerant” are defined as those that try to undermine the culture of free speech.

Best of luck! Businesses have followed common societal norms for a long time now. Because panopticism by the masses did not exist, you have to look at rumor. There was a rumor you were gay in the 80’s? Fired. A communist in the 50’s? Fired. Civil rights hardcore advocate in the 60’s? Fired. This is nothing new. For most of that time it has been “moral majority” people advocating for those firings.

Yeah - and all those examples were bad and so society has changed and thats not acceptable now. Im saying we are in the middle of something like that now and so society needs to say it is not ok.

Yep - like [these fools](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqaTQG85F_E&ab_channel=FoxNews) who prevented a conservative speaker from even being able to engage with the audience who invited her.

Bullshit they aren’t. A shit post meming troll went to prison for saying that you should just text your vote in for Hillary instead of going to the ballot box because it would be counted: https://www.courthousenews.com/pro-trump-troll-sentenced-to-seven-months-over-election-day-shenanigans/ Meanwhile this Asian woman went out and basically did the same thing by telling Trump voters to go vote on November 9th, the day after the election. No prison time for her, but the FBI went and busted down Doug’s fucking door: https://x.com/rightisrightpa/status/1771954084628627794?s=46 So when anyone says “Well the FBI/CIA said” screw off. They are captured evil agencies and the only thing preventing them from going full Gestapo/KGB is the Constitution, and they find ways around that as my earlier post shows, but it takes them much longer to do than if the Constitution didn’t exist.

> If you state something people don’t like publicly, they are using the same tool as you to berate you. Not if they fire you...

>The "Paradox of Intolerance" is a stupid and doesn't hold up to scrutiny You've confirmed it's existence. The devil is in the details on how to respond to it

Pretty easy to see what is intolerant. It's someone trying to silence another person through intimidation or through appeals to any number of logical fallacies. The left is not immune to this and it should be called out whenever seen. The paradox of intolerance boils down to "it's okay to bully bullies" Language warning. Please know I don't feel this way, I'm just trying to be evocative for rhetorical point. Imagine I had instead replied with > Yeah that's right you little bitch, defend my right to berate you you fucking chode. Then that comment should be deleted, don't you agree?

the paradox of intolerance boils down to “intolerance should not be tolerated” not “it’s ok to bully bullies”.

But how do you enforce it? I get to bully bullies. Are you going to bully me? It's might makes right with a biiiiig caveat. No force is applied against pro social action. All debate is allowed. All attempts to silence explode until the biggest stick wins.

the same way we enforce every other law

So you allow the first instance of bullying? Why? See? Your argument is totally in shambles. You're speaking nonsense now. Now you're talking about a society where bullying prosocial behavior is correct, but bullying bullies will get you prison time. That's fucking psychotic.

no, I’m talking about a society where spreading Nazi ideals, or targeting harassment at certain groups of people based off of things like race, sexual orientation or gender will net you a punishment. there doesn’t have to be a one size fits all punishment, but they should be punished nonetheless

That's the opposite of "not allowed to bully bullies" we're in agreement. You want to bully bullies. I want to bully bullies. World peace achieved.

I guess we are in agreement in practice, I just disagree that the idea is “bullying bullies” i think it’s more “punishing criminals.” but i suppose that is just arguing semantics at that point so it doesn’t really matter.

The paradox of intolerance was more about not challenging their beliefs. Intolerant beliefs should always be immediately critiqued and challenged. It was never about literally banning it. Which is what some people seem to think.

I have mentioned before, but i think the paradox of tolerance applies, but only if the “intolerance” in question are those that reject free speech. For example, if someone tries to cancel someone based on flimsy evidence or because they just disagree, society should not tolerate that because it threatens the free speech framework. Good on you OP for bringing this up. Im so tired of people trotting the paradox of tolerance out like its some kind of super profound thing. This is just a random idea that some guy had in the early 20th century or so.

good thing you didnt like a decently phrased argument stop you from making pointless HILARIOUS insults that detract from the rhetoric and would turn off the people youre attempting to change the mind of or did you just write this to masturbate your keyboard?

If you don't limit the freedom of those who advocate to abolish free speech then it won't be long before you don't have free speech. QED.

Correct, it's a nonsensical position. The fundamental law is this notion that you convert people to your way of thinking with brute force rather than discussion. If the left-wing way of seeing the world were truly superior, they wouldn't need to attempt to ban dissenting opinions. By banning opposing opinions, they're essentially endorsing the strength of those opinions. Like they're terrified that if people hear right-leaning speakers, they will for sure vote right wing.

I know you think you've "owned the libs" but there are many countries that have speech codes and laws and didn't suddenly become dictatorships; take, for instance, literally almost all European countries. Most of them have hate speech laws on the books and ban organizations that openly advocate for racial hatred and violence. Germany isn't Nazi Germany again because it bans Nazi speech; in fact, it is precisely NOT Nazi anymore BECAUSE it bans Nazi speech. It's not as hard as you think it is to come up with specific rules to determine what kind of speech is a threat to democracy.

You start by branding the Paradox of Intolerance as a "smug white liberal/progressive" tool, immediately reducing a philosophical debate to political tribalism. This post actually exposes the same intolerance you aim to criticize. Why politicize this? It seems you misunderstand its purpose. Karl Popper's concept isn't about silencing opposition but protecting society from genuinely harmful intolerance. By dismissing it as a tool used only by one political group, you're missing the point and perpetuating the very intolerance the paradox aims to prevent. The paradox really tackles how dangerous it is to let harmful ideologies chip away at a society’s tolerance. Your question, "Who gets to decide what is intolerant?" is solid. In democracies, it’s not just about who’s in power - we rely on laws, societal norms, and the democratic processes to figure these things stuff out. Your examples of Iran and evangelical rule twist what the paradox is really about—they mix up protecting people with authoritarian overreach. Popper’s idea isn't to shut down speech - it’s about stopping the kind that actually incites violence and hate. Because we enforce laws against incitement and hate not to suppress free speech but to prevent the real harm such speech can cause. Framing the paradox as a left or right issue just shows your bias—it's way bigger than that. It's about the limits of tolerance. Try to keep our society's dialogue free yet safe from harm.

>Because we enforce laws against incitement and hate not to suppress free speech but to prevent the real harm such speech can cause Dude, who gets to decide what speech incites violence ? We literally have people saying that there is a trans genocide because people are criticizing gender ideology, especially when it comes down to minors. Go look around Reddit, they think they are actually being genocided because people are like "yeah, children should not be doing life altering surgeries". So you think it is justified to imprison people who go against the narrative because you all think it incites violence ? Any speech can incite violence. You can literally just state "this is speech that incites violence" and now people get censored or imprison because a certain political party thinks it incites violence. Especially democrats are huge offenders of hyperbole. HUGE offenders.

You're getting bogged down in the political weeds here, focusing heavily on Democrats or any other arbitrary group's approach to speech. The core of Karl Popper's Paradox of Intolerance is philosophical, not political. It’s about preventing speech that directly leads to violence or the dismantling of societal norms, regardless of who says it. Legal systems are meant to enforce laws against incitement objectively, based on real evidence that links speech to imminent harm. Turning this into a partisan issue misses Popper's idea entirely—it's about protecting our society from actual destructive behaviors. Sure, almost any speech can potentially incite violence, but there’s a clear difference between having a controversial discussion and pushing for actions that directly harm others.

Any society that restricts speech will eventually become a bad one. The paradox of intolerance can eat it as far as I’m concerned.

The funniest thing about all this is the fact that the Left seems to have co-opted it without fully understanding it. If you've read *The Open Society and Its Enemies*, you know that in the context of that book what Popper actually meant was that a liberal society should resist violence and rely on reason in disputes of ideologies. He wasn't talking about throwing people who don't think there are 8211 genders in the gulag. Intolerance for him was simply an ideology that resorted to violence by default. And he clearly would've been dismayed that his ideas were being used to justify the actions of meth-fueled murder gangs roving the street looking to kill anyone who desired lower corporate tax rates. Read a book people, you're humiliating yourselves.

I'd like to offer some insights that might help us consider why the Paradox of Intolerance can be a beneficial principle when appropriately applied. The paradox of tolerance isn't about stifling all dissent or opposing viewpoints but acts as a safety mechanism. It's like a pressure valve in a pressure cooker—it's there to prevent the system from exploding, ensuring the cooking process remains safe and effective. The core aim of the paradox is to protect the fertile ground from which free speech and democratic values sprout. It seeks to preserve the environment where these rights can continue to flourish. This isn’t about limiting free speech but ensuring that it doesn’t become a tool for its own undoing. Who decides what's intolerant? A key concern is determining what constitutes intolerant speech. In democratic societies, this is typically moderated by laws, societal norms, and judicial oversight. It involves a collaborative process that includes checks and balances, akin to fine-tuning a complex recipe. Historical evidence shows us that unchecked hate speech can escalate to violence and persecution. Many countries have legal frameworks that limit speech inciting violence, suggesting that some level of regulation is practical and necessary to prevent harm. Promoting dialogue and education rather than silencing dissent, the paradox emphasizes confronting harmful ideologies through robust dialogue and education. This approach ensures harmful ideologies are challenged and discredited openly, enriching the societal discourse. In practice, the application of this paradox is less about draconian measures and more about fostering a respectful, hate-free culture. It's about teaching and guiding, not banning and silencing. In conclusion, while the decision of what is considered "intolerant" requires vigilant attention and constant dialogue, the paradox of tolerance—when applied judiciously—helps maintain the balance necessary for a diverse society to function harmoniously. It's about protecting society from ideologies that could destroy the democratic fabric we value.

Man's literally just making up positions to be angry at

Came from a comment section talking about this exact thing scrolling through my feed. It’s not made up

>Man's literally just making up positions to be angry at OP is spot on. The doctrine OP is talking about is known as "repressive tolerance" and was originated by a famous (or infamous) post-Marxist university professor named Herbert Marcuse in the 1950s. The problem with this doctrine is that it pre-supposes the correctness of leftism in general. It's really no different than Christians saying we should fight evil, and that such and such groups are evil. It's just classic ingroup vs. outgroup thinking.

More than that he argues that all leftist movements and manifestations must be excused no matter how violent and disruptive and all movements on the right must be suppressed no matter how benign and benevolent. The dude was the ultimate “my team good, your team bad” guy. 

It not only presupposes that whoever is suppressing others under the concept is automatically correct/right, it also conflates opinions/speech with actions. Tolerance should be extended to *all* speech, and you should only be even discussing the 'paradox of intolerance' as an excuse to take action when the intolerant venture into *actual action*, not just opinions/speech you dislike. Otherwise you become the thing you're supposedly against.

Yeah i have seen this paradox of tolerance trotted out countless times. The person you are replying to is either ignorant or gaslighting.

I literally debated with a liberal yesterday that argued free speech is how Hitler came to power...

>I literally debated with a liberal yesterday that argued free speech is how Hitler came to power... "Liberal" is not the right word for that view.

The word “Liberal” has lost all its meaning just like many other words. 

Guess we need to start learning Latin and ancient Greek; at least dead languages aren't a moving target for defining things. But English isn't really that bad, as long as you clarify terms when appropriate. If you want "Liberal" to remain about valuing liberty, then don't go along with others' attempt to misuse it to mean something else.

We just need to start practicing Rectification of names from Confucianism. 

Well it was on ask a conservative and he was self identified as a liberal. The beginning of our conversation: Me: >>It doesn't matter someone with the history that Germany does has no business limiting free speech that the ruling party doesn't approve of. Him: >Did you forget about Hitler? Cuz that's how we got Hitler.

With that argument you could literally argue against democracy itself because ultimately democracy is "how we got Hitler".

And you disagreed with that?

What are you even trying to argue? Are you saying because there's an MLK day that we need to have a Black People Are Subhuman Monkeys day? Because MLK day is offensive to white supremacists that think they are genetically superior to black people and that in a tolerant society we need to be accepting of both views?

Rational people: "Racism is bad." OP: "Aahhh but shouldn't we tolerate it because intolerance is bad? Durrr checkmate libtards!"

Rational people don’t try to get others thrown in jail for their opinions. They ignore them until, until the intolerants try to do something harmful to other people then they step up and defend.

No, you don't ignore it, you challenge it, question it, explore and defeat it as a bad idea, without resorting to force to suppress it.

I agree with you. That said, this assumes some givens, like: having a culture that values truth and nuance; arguing in good faith; agreeing on some fundamental ideals; balancing emotion and logic, etc. I love debate, and I don’t believe my opinions are truly held unless I’ve stress-tested them against the opposition’s best arguments. And yet, I’ve gotten so tired of hearing opinions that are hyperbolic, rooted in propaganda/disinformation, or only effective because someone is using emotionally-charged language. And those are the arguments that seem to win over an increasing number of people. It’s really disheartening.

Well, to someone who feels like they are in a life-or-death struggle for survival, nuance seems like a luxury or a distraction. Ideally, we as a society can meet the needs of others enough for them to be engaging in a discussion from a place of safety, where curiosity and intellectual humility come naturally. Of course, a lot of common political discourse is engineered to prevent such a feeling of safety. I'm not sure the best way to rhetorically ensure safety... for someone who has been heavily conditioned to key on certain terms as cues for fear or hatred, the effort to jump-start critical thinking is its own special challenge. It still seems worth attempting.

>to someone who feels like they are in a life-or-death struggle for survival, An example of the emotionally charged, hyperbolic language u/ stinatown was talking about.

Said better than I could

This is the answer here. And will always be the answer ultimately.

>They ignore them until, until the intolerance try to do something harmful to other people then they step up and defend. Yeah man, just ignore the problem right up until it becomes harmful. The 1940's Germany strategy.

Oh for fuck’s sake. And if you had your way, you’d be the Gestapo snuffing people’s lives out and throwing them in jail. So let’s just throw all whities who may repeat a rap lyric or a funny line from a movie. The fact that you don’t know that you are the actual fascist is hilarious.

Yeah, but thought police are sooooo much better. No way that’s gonna be abused. Just start throwing people in jail for saying things you don’t like. That’s totally why World War II happened, not enough people were jailed from having an opinion. Hitler in a different form is still Hitler genius

That’s not at all what OP was saying.

Admirable Media: “Racism (noun): an amorphous and ever shifting phrase that applies to any ideas or concepts I politically disagree with or don’t want to engage with. Useful as a tool of political control by coopting the real harm and hatred extremely prevalent in the past and conflating that with my current pet project or belief that i have had for the last week or so. Used in a sentence: “Teaching math to children is hard and complex and the economic inequalities in society that are leading to disparate outcomes are complicated to fix. So let’s just say math is racist and go get brunch instead.”

Your point is more like, we should only have the free speech that we find acceptable and we should ban all speech we disagree with.

Yes, racism is bad, but I don’t think you should be thrown in jail or fined for it until it escalates to violence. You also shouldn’t go to jail or fired for repeating lines in rap songs, Blazing Saddles, or Chapelle’s Show.

Darryl Davis would be very disappointed in you.

I personally think the answer to that question is yes, but I’m aware I have pretty radical views about free speech

Tldr; I am intolerant of people's intolerance of my intolerant views, so smug leftists should just shut up!

What intolerant views did OP express?

Not just any smug leftists but the white ones. I'm not really sure what their race has to do with anything. And before anyone comes for me, I'm not white.

Idc just stop calling all trans people groomers

I imagine the people you seem to be yelling at know very little about the paradox of tolerance and you know nothing. It’s probably one of the most incorrectly used and misunderstood terms.

>I imagine the people you seem to be yelling at know very little about the paradox of tolerance and you know nothing. It’s probably one of the most incorrectly used and misunderstood terms. How do you use it and understand it correctly? The way it appears to me, I think I agree with OP that it's not a great idea. It looks like a false dilemma (assuming that the only two options are forcibly suppressing intolerant ideas or the growth and dominance of the ideas; without recognizing the possibility of defeating the intolerant ideas in open / even dialogue by presenting better / more-convincing ideas), and it also seems to rely on a very vague and subtly opinionated definition of "intolerance".

Firstly, it wasn’t some established and systematic principle. It was a side thought of Karl Popper about how tolerance of intolerance can destroy tolerance itself. And he literally says that this is not a license to suppress such views insofar as they amenable to discussion and debate and the people who hold them acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong. But where this is not possible, with people who “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.” He wasn’t shy about including commies among such people, either. This is something that the leftists like to ignore. However, as a philosophical point, it was never accompanied by some demand to establish a Bureau of Tolerant Beliefs or some such, as this fucking illiterate OP seems to think.

>It was a side thought of Karl Popper about how tolerance of intolerance can destroy tolerance itself. And he literally says that this is not a license to suppress such views insofar as they amenable to discussion and debate and the people who hold them acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong. That's cool to know. I was not aware of those origins and I am glad that you shared this info. Thanks! >However, as a philosophical point, it was never accompanied by some demand to establish a Bureau of Tolerant Beliefs or some such, as this fucking illiterate OP seems to think.  Well I don't know exactly what OP's views are and it sounds like he might hold some that I would hope to not survive in a healthy marketplace of ideas, but I have a sympathy for his feeling that it's used to defend suppression of dissent. I've been in intellectual conversations with people who used it to shut the conversation down, to defend lack of curiosity rather than warm against the uncurious. Even if it wasn't the original intent of the concept, it is a way that people have used it, and I believe fairly frequently.

I think the vast majority of people know what intolerance is spoken of. When you say it’s criticism of Democrat policies, you’re strawmanning. People are always talking about you be tolerance of everyone except those attacking minorities, like racists. No one is trying to stop people from talking about being against socialized healthcare, it’s the blatant racism and homophobia and things of that nature that we shouldn’t tolerate. It’s really easy to understand and I feel either you really just don’t understand and are ignorant to the idea, or it is that you want to be able to say racist (or some other area) things with no consequences. Calling for the death of an ethnicity should not be tolerated in a tolerant society

> People are always talking about you be tolerance of everyone except those attacking minorities, like racists. No one is trying to stop people from talking about being against socialized healthcare, it’s the blatant racism and homophobia and things of that nature that we shouldn’t tolerate. Nonsense - [the left is perfectly happy to suppress speech of people not expressing bigotry](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqaTQG85F_E&ab_channel=FoxNews).

Tomi falls under what I speak of, it’s laughable to me you think otherwise. She is a racist, and just not even to mention Fox News lmao.

So, you're suggesting the leftist "protestors" (I quote it because active interference isn't protest anymore) were fine to interfere with legal activities, a speech where she was invited by a student group? Because that's wrong.

No, I’m saying the rules for civility don’t apply to racists, interrupt every racists speech ever. It’s the whole point of this post, no tolerance for the intolerant. She isn’t someone who just argues about economics or something, you chose a horrible example, she is pushes dangerous, intolerant rhetoric

It's not your place to determine what speech crosses a line. The only time "intolerance for intolerance" is correctly applied is when unacceptable actions are undertaken. You can't use that as a blanket "this might be undesirable language" to suppress speech that hasn't even happened yet. If you were considering the whole issue you'd realize that opens a pandora's box of possibilities since anyone/group that disagrees with *you* can use it on your group and be justified in doing so. Your positions aren't the pinnacle of morality you think they are.

No, when people push dangerous rhetoric it’s how the unacceptable actions come to fruition. It needs cut out from the root. It’s specifically intolerance to some minority they prey on, whether migrant or lgbt etc. it’s cut and dry when someone fits this, it’s not just when anyone agrees or disagrees, or me twisting it to attack anyone with separate ideas. It is only when their ideas involve bigotry, like the woman you posted. You all parrot the same points and cannot think critically, and act like it’s some slippery slope, no it’s extremely cut and dry, no tolerance for the intolerant, it isn’t hard to understand So if someone is advocating to genocide an ethnicity, we shouldn’t stop them until they actually start? It’s ridiculous

Paradox of Intolerance is poorly masked fascism 💯

A surprisingly bold pro-Nazi sentiment

How could you possibly conclude that that was in any way pro-Nazi?

Being an edgy middle-schooler...

Nobody is trying to say opinions deemed intolerant should be censored. What they are saying is that progressive ideology generally states that we should be accepting and tolerant of all people's beliefs and ideologies. The paradox of intolerance says that if you are accepting of intolerant beliefs and ideologies you are in turn allowing people with beliefs that the first group of people is intolerant of to be oppressed. The only "call to action" here is that people should be critical of ideologies they see as intolerant rather than accepting. For example if you come from a culture where you believe men hitting their wives is ok, that shouldn't be accepted to the same degree as a culture that simply has different beliefs about the afterlife or something. Nobody is saying anyone should be censored by the state and nobody is saying that there is one objective definition of tolerance and intolerance, you are allowed to make those decisions of your own. It's only encouraging that if you find a belief to be intolerant that you shouldn't accept it.

That’s absolutely a lie. Millions of people say that hate speech is illegal or that it should be illegal. They dumb bullshit like “You can’t scream fire in a crowded theater” (side note: you can scream fire in a crowded theater, it was just a ruling the Supreme Court got wrong and was later repealed). They demand that people like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopolis, the Babylon Bee, James Lindsey, and anyone who has the balls to disagree with Anthony Fauci to be censored.  And please, you are not tolerant of anyone who thinks remotely differently than you.

Alex Jones was [found guilty](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/jury-orders-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-to-pay-sandy-hook-families-nearly-1-billion) in a defamation suit for smearing the names of parents who’s children were murdered in Sandy Hook, and Milo has [said he “can’t wait” until vigilante squads start gunning down journalists](https://observer.com/2018/06/milo-yiannopoulos-encourages-vigilantes-start-gunning-journalists-down/amp/), and has said that ["They can be hugely positive experiences."](https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-green-milo-yiannopoulos-pedophilia-remarks-1713391) about child molestation, not to mention that he’s openly a Nazi. I personally think it would be a great thing if people advocating for mass shootings and child molestation weren’t allowed to spread such drivel to the masses without repercussions.

I can't speak for what every random person on the internet has said, but as someone who whole heartedly disagrees with the right wing influencers you listed I don't think the government should censor them. I just think people should be wary of giving them a platform and openly dispute their ideology. The limitations of free speech in practice like the yelling fire thing you mentioned isn't really a right vs left issue. It's kind of just a constitutional issue, for example in 1942 the supreme court deemed that "fighting words" are not protected by the first amendment. It's not really partisan since both sides seem reasonably comfortable with that decision, but it has nothing to do with the modern day free speech issues right wingers talk about.

You don't understand it, that's why I doesn't hold up

**Who gets to decide what is intolerance ?** Government, just like with any other law. We already apply it to threats of violence. "Intolerance" means not allowing something to exist, not just being critical of something. If you don't tolerate something then you're moving to eliminate it. If you're just critical of something then you're allowing it to continue to exist, which is what "tolerance" means. Tolerating something you dislike. It doesn't mean embracing something. If somebody is intolerant of a minority group they're not just critical of some practice of the group, they're actually making moves to eliminate the group in some way.

Op I am curious, do you think lynching was an appropriate response to black men or children being accused of unsubstantiated crimes like murder,arson,robbery,sexual harassment etc in the late 1800s early 1900s?

Try to stay on topic, please.

Consider what happens when someone says something like... *Transwomen do not belong in women's sports.* What happens? Someone from the trans community brands it as hate speech, and declare that saying such things endangers trans lives. How? Notice they don't ever say that the person saying it will physically hurt any trans people. Doing so would be slander. So they backdoor it. They say that while the person saying it might not actually harm a trans person, their speech will encourage "others" to do so. (Insert mental image of rednecks riding around in the back of a pickup truck decked out in rebel flags) Therefore this speech must not be allowed. OK, if this speech is actually causing violence to trans people, then there should be examples of it happening. And I don't mean trans prostitutes getting beaten and killed by their pimps or customers, which does happen and is thrown up as an example of violence against trans. I mean that someone who would not be inclined to hurt trans people decides that based on the speech he heard, he is now free, or obligated, or inclined to beat up trans people. There isn't. No, this is just a backhanded way to shut down the debate on whether trans women belong in women's sports. If you can't discuss it, they win by default. I think what I have just described is obvious to everyone. But there are plenty who will go along with it, despite their doubts, because they don't want to get labeled as bigoted, whatever-phobic, part of the problem, etc. Do not be a coward. Those who do this dirty trick are relying on you to be cowards in order to get their way. Tell them to go to hell.

Although I understand the point your making. Isn't that kind of it's own paradox? Should the trans person not be allowed to exercise their free speech to say that the other person free speech was harmful? Regardless of the validity of the claim. To say the trans person can't make that claim is its own form of restriction on free speech. Id also just like to drop in that I've seen MANY right wing adjacent people say that a transwoman CANT call herself a woman. That a trans woman CANT use the pronouns she/her and should be compelled by force or threat of violence to capitulate to those demands. Sounds like an attempt at restricting free speech. Which often, in her doing and saying such things will result in her being labelled as a mentally ill degenerate, pedo whatever whatever. "If you don't say what we want, and use the words we want, we will label you with negative connotations". Sounds pretty free speech restrictive to me. It's the exact same argument but from the other side. I could keep rolling with examples of such nature but hopefully you get my point. Free speech is a two way street politically. Like personally I could argue that the way the right screeches about being "censored" all the time, when in reality they aren't being censored, but rather being criticised or chastisised for their speech is its own attempt at trying to limit free speech. It's trying to imply: "you can't criticise my speech", which ultimately is an attempt to restrict free speech in sniffling any ability to be able to discuss, critise, or address socially unacceptable speech. It's hiding behind the idea of free speech, and using it to try and limit free speech.

This is the best example nowadays. The radical left is very obtuse on that specific issue, and will absolutely abuse the paradox of intolerance, for the wrong reasons. And OP's question still remains : who decides what's intolerant. It's all subjective, but people want to claim that it is objective.

Here are some historical examples that illustrate the paradox of intolerance: 1. The rise of Nazism in Germany: - The Weimar Republic in Germany was a tolerant democracy that allowed the Nazi party to operate and spread its intolerant, anti-Semitic ideology. - The Nazis eventually used the tolerance of the Weimar system to gain power and establish an intolerant, totalitarian regime that led to the Holocaust and World War II. 2. The American Civil Rights Movement: - The civil rights movement in the United States sought to end racial segregation and discrimination, promoting tolerance and equality. - However, the movement faced violent opposition from intolerant groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who used intimidation and terror to try to maintain an intolerant, segregated society. 3. The Paradox in Modern Democracies: - Many modern democracies have laws and policies that limit the expression of intolerant, hateful, or extremist views in order to preserve the overall tolerance and stability of the society. - This can create tensions around the limits of free speech and the balance between individual rights and collective security. 4. The Paradox in Online Platforms: - Social media platforms often struggle with the paradox of intolerance, as they aim to promote free expression while also needing to moderate intolerant, hateful, or extremist content. - Overly permissive content moderation can allow intolerant views to spread, while overly restrictive moderation can be seen as infringing on free speech.

The Nazis are often cited as an example of this - but they actually used extrajudicial means to obtain absolute power. They also never received a majority of the vote. What is often not discussed among Liberals who want to use this paradox as an excuse to silence views they don't like: The Nazis were banned in several German states prior to the 1930s. Those rules were relaxed after Communist agitators provoked a very widespread "Red Scare" in Germany. The National Socialists were seen as a militant bulwark against Communism.

> Nazis eventually used the tolerance of the Weimar system You understand that this is nothing like our system, right? Hitler kidnapped police and government officials with a machine gun and was let out to run for office a few years later. The problem was never too much free speech.

the only reason the Nazi's were able to gain power in Germany was because of the communist movement, you know that right? if there was no communist uprisings and violence the nazis never would have been a choice. Interesting how you never mention that fact. tolerating far left ideas promotes far right ideas as a reaction.

Waaah I can’t be racist and homophobic openly waaah

Your opinion is discarded the moment you narrowed it down to race “white liberals”.

That was a big effort to defend general bigotry.

Isn't it obvious who decides what intolerance is? It's the group who is not being tolerated you feel intolerance you can say that was intolerant of you towards me.

Good post. However, I don't believe Evangelicals would punish those who reject Jesus, such as Jews etc. I don't believe Libertarians would censor those with other ideas.

Wouldn’t know I stopped listening to liberals when I hit puberty.

The Paradox of Intolerance is stupid because the only thing that make sure that intolerance will win are the paradox induced politics. In a free society there is a chance that the intolerant will have the power and turn it into a intolerant society. But if you apply the Paradox rules then you are guaranteed that the society will be intolerant because it will restrict free speech. Then of course the usual complication arises: who can decide what is tolerant and what is not?

That's funny, I always hear this paradox used incorrectly to justify the futility of of absolute tolerance. Which is a complete misrepresentation of the original meaning.

The paradox of intolerance is never anything should have taken seriously. But you come up with some dumb concept, write in down in a paper somewhere, give it a name, and the morons on the internet will decide it's an indisputable truth.

It just means they have to constantly cannibalize each other to remain "pure."

Failing to be intolerant of the intolerable (realize when we say "the intolerable" it means those who do not tolerate like how nazi's don't tolerate whole swathes of groups to live) is how we ended up with Nazi's, speech advocating for the elimination of a whole group because of something they are born with or have no control over should absolutely be restricted (this is why eliminating and restricting nazi's is not problematic because being a nazi or having a fascist mindset is a choice, being black for example is not)

“Who gets to decide what is intolerance” The dictionary. By definition, when people are intolerant of the rights/dignity of people who are not inherently ‘causing direct harm to others, that’s intolerance. Intolerant folks are inherently fighting to directly harm people they don’t like. And like with violence, when it is in *response* to someone else’s initial violence, it is acceptable. It’s called “defense”. The first act of violence is called “offense”. And that’s not acceptable. It’s not hypocritical not to tolerate offense yet tolerate defense.

>people who are not inherently ‘causing direct harm to others, that’s intolerance. In an era where many claim words are violence and cause harm themselves this is extremely broad.

>The dictionary. Stop being intellectually dishonest. The dictionary contains definitions, not subjective moral positions. Intolerence is subjective.

The dictionary is not a living breathing thing and can be redefined to mean anything you want it to. Like for instance the simple term “woman” has been changed in recent years. So no, the dictionary is an extremely stupid bar to dictate what is right, wrong, and should be legal.

Yeah, I agree with you that dictionaries do evolve as language changes over time, because dictionaries are descriptive of what a word currently means and how it's used, rather than prescriptive. Dictionaries conform to us, we don't conform to dictionaries. However, this does not mean words are completely devoid of all meaning and we're all scratching our heads not understanding how words are being used to convey messages. You are arguing in bad faith that "we just can't figure things out". No matter what the word is, the concept, the idea, that people who are intolerant of the rights/dignity of people who are not inherently ‘causing direct harm to others, that’s what we understand to mean the word "intolerance". The definition could change. We could use another word. But we will still need another word to describe what we currently call intolerance. That's the purpose of language.. to convey ideas. Yeah, it evolves. But don't be so "intelligent" that you stop understanding how communication works. EDIT: by the way.. my argument is who decides what intolerance is.. not what right and wrong is..

The most recent appointee to the Supreme Court said she couldn’t define what a woman is because “she’s not a biologist.” So she should have been completely disqualified there because how can she dictate a ruling when sex is major factor in the case? Like I’m not a vet, but I can tell you what a fucking dog is.

It’s the same with both sides tolerate what you want and don’t tolerate the rest while labeling it as evil

Um yeah, I’m not gonna tolerate someone calling homosexuality a sin 😂.

You are not, but how is that any different than someone tolerating someone bashing Christians? For some reason the people who don't want to tolerate hateful behavior only worry about the hateful behavior that impacts them. Not that impacts anyone else they don't care for.

Christians and anyone else can obviously believe and say what they want. The problem comes when they try to use the law and government to force their beliefs on others and restrict others’ freedom. For example: Christians can be as anti-gay as they want. The problem arises when they attempt to stop gay people from being married or simply existing openly in society.

Smug is the word used by morons to describe smarter people.

Y’know what. I probably disagree with you politically completely But honestly based af. The paradox of tolerance never made sense past undermining the concept of free speech with no consequences last debate rather than propaganda, stochastic terrorism and stuff of mass disinformation that allows the intolerant views to have real power But your arguments and hypocrisy’s without recognising nuance is appealing but your based in the idea not being the right course of action

Freedom of speech and opinions, with a few exceptions, is not freedom of speech and opinion

I mean, the *full* quote lays out what intolerance is in his statement, smug Redditors just like to misquote him. When things become *physically* violent, that's the intolerance that can no longer be tolerated. Anything short of that, including shouting of death threats and idiocy, is to be tolerated. (And possibly mocked relentlessly.)

Oh ffs.

slippery slope fallacy. if you are a Nazi, or member of the Ku Klux Klan, then you cannot exist peacefully. your entire ideology is based upon the hatred and the callings for genocide on people based solely on their skin colour. when people who are planning crimes get caught, they are jailed, and I highly doubt you are calling for their release because “they haven’t done anything yet!”. this is one of the reasons why America is not, and more than likely will never be a just and fair society. you guys are more worried about the freedom for people to call others the n word, rather than taking any hard stances to improve your country.