Let's take a pragmatist approach: the politics of equality works.

I don't read articles that call people with psychotic disorders 'mad'. Stop stigmatizing mental illness.

Well yeah it’s just a way of describing 2 types of environments and how they determine human behavior

It’s not straw-manning - the vast majority of modern conservatives behave and believe exactly as I described, or worse. It’s an entire political movement based around antisocial and hateful tendencies, and I’m describing it exactly how it is. How is that straw-manning?

[removed]

Absolutely no, there's no justification for initiating violence on a person, let alone a group of people who number in the millions, simply because they hold certain views. You can't justify that violence by saying "Well maybe if they say certain things people will get hurt" either. Do I really need to explain how horrible this stance is?

Initiating violence is morally acceptable if and only if you're protecting yourself, your property, or other people from immediate and tangible danger, not hypothetical future danger that might or might not occur.

It sounds like environmental determinism with a fresh coat of paint tbh

You saying that directly contradicts my interpretation of what free speech is, so I’m going to imprison you for saying it. Hopefully next time people think twice about openly advocating for what you just did.

Free speech does not include speech against what I consider free speech.

I don't get militant atheism. It's not as if there isn't a crazy conundrum no matter what you believe. E.g. it's about equally crazy to believe the universe has lasted forever, that it was created from nothing, that a god existed forever, or that a god was created from nothing. We have zero observations to understand what makes sense in that context. So what if some people believe the answer there is something more spiritual?

Additionally, the majority of religious belief, seen through the lens of atheism, is the formalization of conventional wisdom by people who lived out their entire lives centuries ago. It's not fashion nor is it messed up. It's mostly about rejecting certain short-term lifestyles in favor of one that promises stabler, more long-term happiness. E.g. it's quite common for a person having tons of promiscuous sex to enter abusive relationships and be in turmoil. Sex bonds people whether it's rational or not, so it turns out it's not a good idea to start bonding with someone you know nothing about. Similarly, people found if you do drugs all the time, your life can crash and burn, so many religions have rules against that. Religions are all about human nature, and they were liked so much that they passed on first through word of mouth and then through writing for literally thousands of years. Their messages resonate with the human condition.

No one will be passing on your negativity generation to generation, but there surely will be know-it-alls in future generations that prefer to short-circuit all thinking to promote the delusion that they're superior. "It's all so simple. Trust me, I know everything." I'm sorry if your day-to-day thinking is dedicated solely to simplifying everything that makes other people human. You'll likely find, once you age beyond 18-25, that you were mistaken here. It happens to all sorts of people, and it's generally social/life inexperience that promotes such swift simplifications in regards to everything and every argument and every conflict. I'd bet you ignore other tough problems like war. "It's so simple just stop killing others and be fair." Thanks, genius, we know. There happens to be more present than that.

I don't see a paradox, or rather I depart from Popper's paradox in a way which resolves it.

if tolerance = tolerance

and intolerance = ~tolerance

than ~(~intolerance) = tolerance

Thus the only form of intolerance which is tolerable in a just society is the intolerance of intolerance and this is not logically inconsistent or irrational using the symbolic logic above.

This requires more complex analysis and terms since we need to better define what tolerance is with respect to the nuance and complexity of a society and civilization rather than mere logic.

I tend to perceive in terms of impositionality and the need for justification being non-arbitrary. I would thus propose that any significant and arbitrary imposition is a thing which society should restrict. yet Human beings tolerate myriad forms of imposition. We tend to tolerate arbitrary and more extreme forms of imposition less frequently. If we break these forms down and understand the basis for tolerance of them, we might better come to understand what forms of tolerance and intolerance are acceptable. Examples of imposition in this context include the production of sound, or existing within the visual range of a person, consuming finite resources, being an emotional being (imposing one's emotional needs on others), etc.... Most people would be entirely accepting of another person producing sound, but would be intolerant of it in a movie theater or during the middle of a funeral or wedding ceremony. similarly if a young child or a person with a significant psychological condition was verbally disruptive we would tend to tolerate such sonic impositions more readily. Who is doing it, where it is done, what they are doing, why they are doing it, etc... all play into our tolerance of many things.

So, intolerance of intolerance seems to be a rather narrow and also particularly variable set of ideas. the generally agreed to restrictions to the arbitrary imposition of a person or group on the basis of race, sex, gender, or nationality is based in this understanding of intolerance of intolerance. I think intolerance is arbitrary and thus subject to justified intolerance if it is based in any ascribed status (since a person cannot choose or change this status within reason). accountability thus also plays a significant role. if one cannot be accountable, within reason, the intolerance of them is unjustified and thus should not be tolerated. For example if a person is Russian, this alone is not a sufficient reason to hold them accountable for the actions of the administration which presides over them. Most people would agree that a citizen of a country is not accountable for the actions for their country's policies in the same way that the representatives of their government are. Similarly a black person or a white person is not accountable for the actions of other white or black people, etc.... Each person is accountable for themselves, and we ought to tolerate or not tolerate them based on the degree of arbitrariness that their imposition, their behavior or assertion, has on others.

I'm not going to lie and say that the division isn't high, and that most of that division isn't centered around tolerance/culture wars. But I think it's extremely hyperbolic to suggest that the US is not comparatively one of the most tolerant countries in the world or that it doesn't have a culture of tolerance. Anywhere that you have diversity, you're going to have some intolerance. If you don't believe me, ask your average European about their opinions on gypsies or Muslim refugees.

>, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence.

But not impossible. And so long as the violence is at a maintainable level, then I would argue the benefits of legislating it do not outweigh the cons. The vast majority of people argue about tolerating certain views/lifestyles without shedding blood.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

This entire "paradox" is hateful people trying to use your morality against you to twist your arm. Hateful people know that good people get hung up on matters of moral purity.

This always felt more like a cheap "gotcha" than a paradox for that reason.

Good people of sound mind are equipped to use their judgment to assess human social situations on an individual basis.

Good is not a synonym for Nice. Sometimes societal shunning or even force is necessary to keep hateful people from feeling emboldened to prey on others using a facade of a belief system. Some people see the world through the lens of power not philosophy or discourse.

Indulging tainted ideologies with tolerance exposes vulnerable people to it and gives the impression those ideologies have merit.

Tolerance seemingly translates to pacifism to some people and it is a fine line between being a pacifist and a bystander.

Sometimes just some well phrased vicious mockery from a knowledgable person is enough to make a point and keep in mind more often than not the purpose of that is not to convince the hateful to change but rather to sway the audience. It depends on the scope of the situation in question and a measured response is the answer.

How do we decide what is a tainted ideology? Ultimately as a group. This is where society leans on the enlightened to make these calls and extract nuance and truth from grey situations.

If we don't trust the scholars of humanity to sort this out as a group we will get nowhere fast. While this system isn't perfect I think it is evident that human morality is evolving in a good way over time when we look at the viewpoints that influence younger generations as a whole.

The way the paradox of tolerance is smugly intoned as though it’s already the law of the land is genuinely one of the worse uses of philosophy I’ve seen.

Who do you trust to condemn someone as unworthy of the toleration of society? To say the intolerant should not be tolerated is like saying only good people should be allowed to vote: it’s a totally subjective judgment.

Giving the state the power to suppress those it deems intolerant will not protect liberty or democracy.

Didn’t claim pre-life choice is real - just a hypothetical possibility.

About trading my life: that’s not what I said. I would not trade my life against a miserable one, of course.

What I said was: perhaps having a bad life is better than never living at all.

I believe that there comes a point where a minority can be out-voted, by public opinion, to the point where its possible to direct intolerance on them with little more than a protracted campaign of hate speech.

Put another way, when there aren't enough XXX to defend themselves, public opinion can be swayed with little more than 'freedom of speech'.

At that point, the public become willing to vote for INtolerance in that specific case. It's happened many times historically, and is a reason I can get behind both aspects of European hate-speech laws, and aspects of American sue culture.

The step of violence has already been taken. Oddly it was taken by self described liberal’s. Strange times we live in.

I’m sorry you’re being downvoted for asking questions. You’re not necessarily wrong, hypothetically, about the cause and effect of the situation. What I think you’re actually discovering is why it is so important to try to react to (what we may deem) “silly” ideas with the exact same line of question that we answer “real” ideas with. I personally think the whole situation has less to do with “tolerance” and more to do with welcoming new ideas while also making sure we still put them through the same line of scientific questioning that we would anything else.

[removed]

You mean those who deny liberty to others?

Because the ones that are obsessed with “canceling” the speech of others are the ones that seek the liberty of speaking whatever they want without the responsibility of being held accountable for the words that they utter.

They do so by denying those who oppose them the liberty of calling out their lies and their bullshit (Frankfurt 1986 definition).

It is amazing that so many who claim to be “cancelled” on the political right somehow also have column inches and minutes of airtime to whine about it. It’s almost like it’s bullshit.

Elon Musk is a liberty denier. You criticize him, you are silenced. You point out he uses eco to conceal Eco, you are silenced.

Go ahead and criticize my argument. I’ve got little to do at the moment, but I won’t deny you the liberty to criticize anything I say. But if you do have a criticism, rebut my claims.

I might understand that guys apparent MO, but I’m nowhere near that guy in behaviour and attitude.

And who are the judges?

>I’m not convinced that is true.

Would most people trade their lives with these miserable lives? I'm talking about the worst prolonged suffering possible and most ended in agony, most are children, they dont get any "happy ending" for their terrible fate, its terribleness from birth till death, this is statistically undeniable and unpreventable for some.

Would you trade your life with them? If its that valuable?

>it’s possible we were all given a choice,

Eh, what? No offense, but absurd claim requires extraordinary proof.

What if we put it simpler. (Or at least less academically)...

Just listen and make fewer assumptions. You might find yourself learning more naturally about both the philosophy and culture of a place.

What’s wrong with an infinite regress? If he is comfortable with an infinite being why would he try and avoid an infinite regress?

God is not only infinitely old but he is also infinitely large and infinitely knowing and infinitely smart etc. a God is an infinity of infinities.