Comment by postexitus
12 days ago
Tolerance Paradox is not a "Tolerance Threshold" - it's a Paradox. You cannot be maximally liberal "up to Tolerance Paradox" - as soon as you are maximally liberal to any threshold, you are no longer liberal - hence the paradox.
It seems you define liberal in a rigid way. What I tried to convey is that for any Tolerance to exist, it has room to tolerate anything except Anti-Tolerance, as part of its essence. Paradox isn't a contradiction ("you are no longer liberal"), it is something that might seem like a contradiction. But maybe we agree about that and my wording was confusing.
Let's leave "liberal" definition aside. I agree it's not well defined - I only used, because you said "maximally liberal".
A dilemma is a hard choice. A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it, the danger of this arbitrary "Tolerant except for the Anti-tolerant" idea is that, the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
Exactly, Popper recognized that the paradox was not a rule or even a suggestion, but was rather a problem without a clear solution. That’s why he named it as such.
Besides, Popper isn’t a god nor is he the only one with an opinion on this problem. Rawls for instance thought that only in exceptional circumstances should intolerance be suppressed. Popper’s paradox also isn’t anything special, literally every theory of human rights can be attacked by finding specific cases in which exceptions must be made for self protection. These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
1 reply →
(Ok, I think the confusion is due to how English has used this french word for centuries, but since early 20th century gave it a new meaning. English Wikipedia redefines it from "seemingly absurd yet really true" to a shallow form, erasing doxa, thus only keeping a contradiction as defined in formal Logic.)
My point is that Anti-Intolerance is the essence of Tolerance, not something outside of it.
I understand. Discussion about that should be part of a healthy society, between conformant players that respect the public democratic order. Knowing the paradox is the anti-dote against the players seeking to destroy this shared system, those that do not respect democratic boundaries, they like to play the game of taking a principle, coming up with something absurd, declaring that the principle should be understood as rigid, all to declare that the principle does not exist. Because for the few to take advantage, the many have to give up their common values.
That is the big rift. And that is why I want to give this tool to the online HN reader, because the learned Rigid Beliefs only serve to destroy common principles needed for a just society. (Especially in the US context, where boolean thinking is imho very prevalent, which I see as the fruits of political marketing.) People reading about the Paradox might get some proper mind frame for the first time to escape the nihilist narratives.
When you discriminate against people not born here, I would ask: why?
In the case of (a), I can see how you could propose that. There might be a discussion about equal outcome or equal chance. You have a democracy and public healthy debate, you share a common society. I propose you have a debate and vote for it.
In the case of (b), this would not be a discussion in my country as the constitution stipulates that everyone being in this country will be treated equally in the same circumstances, reasoning from "equal value". There is also the declaration of Human Rights. So I would say it puts a real burden on the proponent to defend why seeking inequality at the detriment of a group is justified.