Comment by panopticon

6 years ago

This seems like a really wild stance to take on a paradox. Paradoxes aren't principles, laws, or theories. They're just self-contradictory or logically contrary statements; they don't require "empirical evidence" outside of the reasoning laid out in the paradox itself.

It would be better to say that people shouldn't use a paradox as evidence for something (e.g., claim aliens must exist because of Fermi's Paradox).

8 comments

panopticon

Reply
cmonnow  6 years ago

> paradox of tolerance

Unnecessary use of the 'paradox' label.

If a criminal shoots a cop, that is violence.

If a cop shoots the criminal back, is that the 'paradox of violence' ?

If a surgeon cuts open a patient with a knife, to treat a tumor, is that the 'paradox of violence' ?

Violence used to curb violence is peace. Peace used to ignore violence is violence.

There is nothing 'paradoxical' about not tolerating the intolerant. That is basic justice.

  • Ghjklov  6 years ago

    You had me until here:

    >Violence used to curb violence is peace. Peace used to ignore violence is violence.

    So an eye for an eye, eh? And if I use my eye to look away, I also deserve to lose it? I think you are a dangerous fellow. I'd sooner allow someone to say some mean things on the internet than let someone like you ever get into a position of power.

    • cmonnow  6 years ago

      > So an eye for an eye, eh?

      So if a criminal is shooting at you (violence), the police should not shoot the criminal (also violence)?

      1 reply →

bad_user  6 years ago

Well no, a claim is made and that is... unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. And this is then used as an argument in debates such as this one.

Are there documented cases of this happening or is it just a wild guess?

My bet is on the later.

  • intended  6 years ago

    There is empirical evidence from the multiple natural experiments that happened on subreddits at the start of Reddit.

    I personally had to come up with arguments to justifiably censor people to stop the sub I became a part of, from becoming more of a chess pool.

    I was a card carrying member of the market place of ideas/ free speech camp till 12-13 years ago, at which point it was clearer to me that giving free speech to certain groups was the same as allowing prions to proliferate in the food chain.

    Which is why stronger moderation was required to reverse the descent into madness - it worked.

    The people who were hateful bigots were ejected and made their own forums, where they promised never to ban dissenting voices.

    Sure enough, they too started banning voices because

    1) they weren’t there for free speech in the first place, just for indoctrination.

    2) free speech meant that They became petri dishes for even more extreme material and eventually had to be banned or risk getting the entire forum/subreddit removed.

    ————

    I’d love alternate interpretations for it, if possible, but the experience from these multiple natural experiments show that letting malicious Machiavellian actors on your platform will result in the abuse of normal users and the tolerance of the system.

    • kinghtown  6 years ago

      > 1) they weren’t there for free speech in the first place, just for indoctrination.

      This is such a great point and to me rings absolutely true.