The Paradox of Tolerance is a concept that arose in the wake of World War II. It is explained more simply here. The paradox has engendered a lot of discussion in the last few years regarding hate speech from neo-Nazis and white supremacists. How much should we, as a society, put up with? Hate speech is protected under the US Constitution, but we all know how that leads to discrimination and oppression that hides under a haze of legality, a poisoning of minds, and sometimes to violence.
(via Fark)
6 comments:
You can say whatever you like, but no one is obliged to agree or to want anything to do with you.
Personally, I'm shunning all the anti-vaxers I come in contact with, and I encourage them to do the same to me.
wait wait. if we're intolerant of the intolerant the whole thing collapses. what good is toleration? Just bomb them all.
"...Person B then decides that it is morally correct to be intolerant of Person A and treat her like crap."
You are allowed to be intolerant of someone's ideas and say so, but never permissible to treat them or any other person like crap.
You can avoid them but that's it. If you have a legitimate argument against their idea there's no need of a personal attack. Attacks are weak position people trying to win anyway.
Excellent. instead of discussing morality, which is a waste of time and often leads to blows, we can talk about the social contract which is much more productive and can lead to practical results. Two points to consider: 1) If the terms of the social contract are imposed from above, are they legitimate? 2) At what point should tolerance be replaced by acceptance? Neither point needs to stray into the cesspool of morality.
What I find distressing is how the parameters of hate speech have changed. Most would agree that espousing Nazi doctrine or white supremacist views is hate speech. However, a statement that perhaps transwomen should not be competing against women in sporting events is viewed as transphobic hate speech. Recently the criticism of Soros funded AGs in various states has been labeled as anti-Semitic hate speech. Is disagreement and debate no longer allowed?
Anon at 10:00 AM gets it. The problem with gnawing these kinds of holes in the principle of free speech is that once "intolerance" or "hate speech" or whatever is deemed an "exception" to which the right of free expression does not extend, would-be censors will just re-define whatever views they don't like as being "intolerant", "hate speech", etc. We already see this with people who say that Nazis are so evil they deserve to be beaten up just for being Nazis, and then call pretty much anybody whose opinions they don't like a Nazi.
Also, don't forget that those who get to define "hate speech" may not be people like you. Two years from now it could be Ron DeSantis and Marjorie Taylor Greene who are in a position to decide what is "intolerant" and "hateful" for the purposes of limiting free expression.
Sorry, but Noam Chomsky was right. "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all."
Post a Comment