The Paradox of tolerance and current events

[TaraJo]

So, I'm sure everyone here who's had conversations lately about current events in America, especially in regards to politics, has seen some variation of this.  Leftists, who usually get the reputation as being all about tolerance, are reacting with violence and aggression against right wing protesters or their causes.  The line is simple: "So much for the tolerant left."  

For me, it brings to mind Karl Popper and the paradox of tolerance.  His claim was that a universally tolerant society will ultimately lead to the destruction of tolerance in that tolerating intollerance will lead to the intollerant eliminating toleration.  Therefore, he argued, a free, open society should not tolerate intollerance.

And I can't help but think he was right.  Germany, back in the 20's and early 30's tolerated national socialism and let that idea into the free marketplace of ideas.  The end result is that this group gained power and had no interest in tolerating Jews, gays, intellectuals or differing political ideologies.  

Now we have people showing up for political protests, flying nazi flags and proudly wearing kkk robes and I'm left here wondering, when do we need to apply this idea?  When do we get to stand up and tell the intollerant "No more"?

[Brian37]

So, I'm sure everyone here who's had conversations lately about current events in America, especially in regards to politics, has seen some variation of this.  Leftists, who usually get the reputation as being all about tolerance, are reacting with violence and aggression against right wing protesters or their causes.  The line is simple: "So much for the tolerant left."  

For me, it brings to mind Karl Popper and the paradox of tolerance.  His claim was that a universally tolerant society will ultimately lead to the destruction of tolerance in that tolerating intollerance will lead to the intollerant eliminating toleration.  Therefore, he argued, a free, open society should not tolerate intollerance.

And I can't help but think he was right.  Germany, back in the 20's and early 30's tolerated national socialism and let that idea into the free marketplace of ideas.  The end result is that this group gained power and had no interest in tolerating Jews, gays, intellectuals or differing political ideologies.  

Now we have people showing up for political protests, flying nazi flags and proudly wearing kkk robes and I'm left here wondering, when do we need to apply this idea?  When do we get to stand up and tell the intollerant "No more"?

I think far too many on the left confuse blasphemy and ridicule and even cussing as being the same as  bigotry or intolerance.

Blasphemy is, "Bullshit you are wrong."

Intolerance and bigotry is, " Hate the other's mere existence."

What we are seeing on the far right as far as politics over the past 8 years has allowed the bigots to be more open and bigger in numbers and is exactly why we saw such a big hate rally with bigots with machine guns. This white hyper nationalist political sale of fear of all others was the exact same tactic Hitler used.

In 45's case this week proves he has no intent on not distancing himself from racists.

[chimp3]

What's next? Tolerating cancer? Oncologists are such haters!

[Brian37]

What's next? Tolerating cancer? Oncologists are such haters!

Hating cancer doesn't mean you want to murder the person who has cancer.

Saying you hate bigots does not mean you want revenge on them. Some sure, but most no. The sane simply want the bigots to stop being bigots. 

If you have to physically defend yourself from a Nazi or KKK member in the moment, sure do it. But just like Japan and Germany, once the fight is over, no, you don't treat them the way they wanted to treat you.

Great analogy. 

[Minimalist]

 When do we get to stand up and tell the intollerant "No more"?

When they start using their cars as weapons.....ISIS style.

[paulpablo]

I don't think anyone would claim saying the words "No more" to intolerant people counts as showing violent or aggressive intolerance since you're just expressing a personal desire.

Aside from any specific event, the principles of tolerance and tolerating intolerant ideologies is usually decided by if the intolerant people are just expressing their opinions or inciting others to act violently.

If you're saying "We" as a society and with government involvement I always thought that's how the problem is dealt with, there's hate speech law, but then there's also people being allowed to express an opinion.

The extreme example of that which I made a thread about not too long ago is obviously the West borough Baptist Church.  Their opinion is that God hates fags, but they're against violence, unless it's supernatural/applied by God. 

I've only seen minor youtube clips and pictures of the protests, I don't know what the white supremacists goals, chants or statements are.  If it's anything inciting violence then I would think that's illegal.  I don't know what the legality of using the Nazi logo or dressing up like a KKK member is in America.  I would think a swastica in this context could be seen as endorsing genocide but I don't know about the legality of that, I know the swastica is used in a completely unrelated way in some kind of spiritual sense.  

I'll take a guess that they aren't all one unified group either.  I'd judge them the same way I'd judge Black Lives Matter.  Black Lives Matter aren't all shooting police officers and chanting about killing them.  I don't think black lives matter are all one big cop killing group, some of the members obviously are.


As for "We" as individuals tolerating intolerant behavior, I think what you can personally do differs from situation to situation.  What can I do when my work colleague believes the punishment for homosexuality is death? what I've been doing so far is tolerating the intolerant opinion because it's easy.  I don't think he will kill homosexuals and I have to work really long hours with this person who is pretty nice other than that one religiously inspired opinion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, I'm sure everyone here who's had conversations lately about current events in America, especially in regards to politics, has seen some variation of this.  Leftists, who usually get the reputation as being all about tolerance, are reacting with violence and aggression against right wing protesters or their causes.  The line is simple: "So much for the tolerant left."  

For me, it brings to mind Karl Popper and the paradox of tolerance.  His claim was that a universally tolerant society will ultimately lead to the destruction of tolerance in that tolerating intollerance will lead to the intollerant eliminating toleration.  Therefore, he argued, a free, open society should not tolerate intollerance.

And I can't help but think he was right.  Germany, back in the 20's and early 30's tolerated national socialism and let that idea into the free marketplace of ideas.  The end result is that this group gained power and had no interest in tolerating Jews, gays, intellectuals or differing political ideologies.  

Now we have people showing up for political protests, flying nazi flags and proudly wearing kkk robes and I'm left here wondering, when do we need to apply this idea?  When do we get to stand up and tell the intollerant "No more"?

So long as those standing up and speaking out are citizens and not the government apparatus (criminal acts notwithstanding). I refuse to tolerate bigotry and will speak up against it. I expect the government to treat everyone, even those I disagree with, fairly.

[Dropship]

Karl Popper....he argued a free, open society should not tolerate intollerance...

Hmm so if there's a "Paedophile Pride" march one day, is he saying we should tolerate it or not?

[The Industrial Atheist]

If you mean we give bigots and racists a heaping dose of shame and jail the ones that violate the law, I agree wholeheartedly. I think shaming would be most effective by those on the right shaming the right wing bigots.

[Brian37]

Karl Popper....he argued a free, open society should not tolerate intollerance...

Hmm so if there's a "Paedophile Pride" march one day, is he saying we should tolerate it or not?

There is NAMBLA if you have not heard of them. But they are just as much sickos as the KKK and American Nazis.

But again DROP, we don't even have to talk about child rape. Do yourself a favor and look up the age of consent of marriage in the United States. And no, in many states the age of consent is not 18 as most might falsely believe.

So in reality pedophilia is quite legal with the parents consent. Sick I know, but guess what, this is what biblical principles get you in a "Christian Nation".

Without consent if it sex is between an 18 year old and a 16 year old we call that statutory rape. With consent of the parent some states call it legal. Jerry Lee Luis, the famous singer married his 14 year old cousin. 

Do I condone this, NO, but again I also don't value the bible as a moral guide. Even Central and South America as Christian majority nations also have varying ages of consent.