This argument is used as a pretty classic motte-and-bailey. You put forward the idea that intolerance is the only thing that must be excluded, expressing it as blatant racism, sexism, and violence. You then slight-of-hand intolerance to mean an ever increasing list of "problematic" behavior as defined by a small group of vocal political activists. When people argue with this (the bailey), you retreat back to the motte and call them a racist.
It's also fairly amusing that a group adhering to a political doctrine that notoriously ignores falsification love to trot out (a tortured interpretation of) Karl Popper as a meme.
This is a classic motte and bailey. The motte is that "intolerance" only means the denunciation of rational argument and calls to violence. The bailey is that this justifies blocking the entire opposition because they are declared to be violent criminals who have abandoned rational argument, or expanding of the definition of "violence" to mean (warning: irony) any rational debate about sacred cows.
I love this argument, just because it completely flips reality on its head. The intolerance that is being discussed is that of the Progressive US Left, who cannot tolerate any dissention from the current state of "politically correct" (here I use it's original definition). What you are describing is the reaction to it. It's a masterstroke of political reasoning, when you find a way to define your own shortfalls as stemming from the "other side".
Edit: I should add, it's amusing while it doesn't affect me, but the ramifications are horrifying.
> "Intolerance" without specifying what one is being intolerant against is just a bare negative connotation unassociated with any meaning. Some things ought to be tolerated, and some things absolutely must not be tolerated.
I'm using Popper's definition provided in his short but often misquoted (certainly on HN) paradox of tolerance, that violence and other coercive means should not be used against those who are willing to debate and not use violence to further their arguments/goals. The content of those ideas is irrelevant.
> In this metaphor, witches stand for openly racist trolls, flat-earthers, hardline anti-vaxxers, and self-confessed nazis. Terrible people that any decent community doesn't want.
Who made you the moral arbiter? As J.S. Mill points out repeatedly in On Liberty, those who will judge what is right and wrong with such certainty that they would deny others the right to speak contrary to these "certainties" are only saying that they are certain of what they say, and they are not infallible.
> The targeting of innocent people is what makes a metaphorical witch-hunt bad.
The targeting of anyone based on disagreement or some misplaced certainty in a hierarchy of morality based on disagreement is what makes a witch hunt bad.
Issue is the definition of "intolerance". Back to Popper, who uses intolerance as:
"they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
In contrast, your definition seems to be something like: If the speech is advocating something that would hurt someone who is already a victim, it's intolerance.
I think Popper's definition is better. The way you use it is sort of nonsensical. E.g. If someone advocated bombing Tokyo in 1944, is that 'intolerance'? No, it's advocating a policy of killing. Same with advocating the death penalty, or war against Iran, or increased sentences for small crimes, or more drone strikes in Pakistan. If these are not 'intolerant', how can you say that advocating a ban on gay marriage is 'intolerant'? It may be wrong but it's not intolerant because it doesn't denounce rational argument.
Intolerant doesn't mean 'wrong opinion'. It doesn't even mean 'super wrong opinion with really bad outcomes'. Intolerance is being unwilling to have a conversation. It's not about what you're arguing for. It's whether you're willing to argue at all.
I can't quite articulate it, but I find the Paradox of Intolerance to be wrong (or at least, incomplete).
It seems to me that, in the context of Popper's idea, what should be tolerated vs. what should not can be largely subjective and is often just weaponized against ideological opponents.
And yet, it's also self-evidently true at the margins -- we cannot tolerate Nazism or those who call for ethnic cleansing and so on.
But it's so overused on social media as a way to say - "I find your politics to be gross, and I will use the Paradox of Tolerance to claim moral superiority."
For example, I have seen people claim you should not tolerate Republicans or fundamentalist Christians or figures like Jordan Peterson. That seems quite extreme to me, as these are all within the American mainstream.
It has become very popular among certain political groups to reference Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance" in order to justify silencing of people they disagree with.
However, "we must not tolerate the intolerant" seriously misrepresents the actual argument.
It was not intended as an enthusiastic endorsement of silencing tactics. It is an uneasy acknowledgement that liberal ideals, if embraced completely, leave the door open to the destruction of liberalism. It presents a question with no comfortable solution. It is absolutely not a demand that we trample the rights of people whose ideas we don't like.
Here's the actual argument:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
First of all, it is not talking simply about tolerance but about "unlimited tolerance." It's not saying you should extend no tolerance to the intolerant, simply that you should not extend unlimited tolerance to them.
Nobody is suggesting unlimited tolerance, the parent is merely positing introspection on matters of our position in the world.
Our enemies become our leaders, if/when our leaders move against our interests as a country surreptitiously and the subsequently keep knowledge of wrongdoing from us.
in this case: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but only since our enemy seeks to enlighten us.
Our leaders should be scared of this, and act in our interests accordingly and with transparency. This is the only way to build trust, and would completely eliminate any power our foreign adversaries would have in destroying trust in political power.
I would much prefer that knowledge come from proper journalistic methods, but given the fact that only a handful of people own all the news media, and the US has been so extremely heavy on any whistleblower journalism: I fear that we have to take what we can get; and I do not say that with happiness or pride... I say that as a person who feels utterly defeated by the crushing weight of the state and the fact that all my heroes are in prison or exile.
You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it.
The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance.
When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop others from expressing different beliefs - nothing else. He did NOT mean "intolerance" of any particular skin tone, or sexual behavior, identity group, etc.
This is important because intolerance of sexual behavior doesn't structurally break the system of discussion and truth-finding that we use. You could jail every blue-eyed person, just was we jail people who commit certain crimes, but as long as everyone can speak then our system for collective truth-seeking still works. The ONLY meaning for the word "intolerance" that breaks that is intolerance of free speech, and that's the only kind of intolerance that Popper said needs to be suppressed with force. And he was right.
I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.
I think there is definitely a bit of sleight of hand going on in order for people to describe whatever outgroup they want as intolerant. In the footnote where he describes the paradox, Popper describes the intolerant's actions as:
1. being unwilling to engage in rational argument
2. forbidding their followers from listening to rational argument
3. teaching their followers to answer rational argument with violence
Usually when I see someone bring up the paradox of tolerance it is because they do not want to engage in rational argument and instead seek to justify pre-emptive violence against a person or group that is at most expressing intolerant opinions.
Yeah, this line of argument is a perfect example of the "Motte and Bailey" fallacy. The structure of this argument works just as well if you replace "intolerance" with "segregationist" or "misogynist". The only takeaway I have from this argument is "it's easier to condemn things which you disagree with". There isn't any discussion of whether the intolerant action is actually intolerant or harmful.
---
Digression, this is a pretty audacious way to minimize Apartheid.
> South African whites and South African blacks ... So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences.
Every single human conflict can be described as "small differences" because humans are very similar to each other. Also, it's harder to be in conflict with people far away from you.
You should go actually read what Popper said about the paradox of intolerance, instead of projecting your own interpretation onto it based upon your assumptions.
Edit: here, I'll do it for you:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
Put more succinctly: one ought to reserve the right to not tolerate the intolerant without limit, but we should always err to engage with them on the level of rational argument. Once they claim that rational argument is no longer the field on which they want to argue, and violence is, the right we reserve is to counter with our own intolerance of that, through violence if necessary, even though that is contrary to our principles of never being intolerant (hence the paradox.)
So no, it doesn't mean you shouldn't tolerate intolerance. On the contrary, it means you should tolerate it as much as humanly possible, but not limitlessly. It's basically the inverse of what you and others claim it says. The paradox is the fact that unlimited tolerance of the intolerant is paradoxical, not that any tolerance of the intolerant is. People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence, specifically, are actually sitting on the "intolerant" side of this argument, funny enough.
Popper didn't say to be intolerant of all intolerance, he said only to be intolerant of intolerance that cannot be countered by reasoned argument or kept in check by popular opinion. In no sense are far-right ideas "popular", and they are easily countered by reasoned arguments.
Popper's paradox of intolerance is probably the most misused and misquoted argument in online debates these past few years.
We're taking about being intollerant of bigotry here. What is it you're arguing to be tolerant of here? It's like you're picking two sides of the same argument depending on whom it favors.
I suggest that you reread your quote as well. The very premise of Popper's argument is based upon society being tolerant without limit. That's the starting point. If I'm saying explicitly to be intolerant then this paradox does not even enter the conversation.
Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.
Yeah, the primary intolerance is done by the champions of Popper's maxim, who weaponized it and use it to cast away anyone who disagrees with them.
I keep saying: the paradox of tolerance applies recursively. To preserve tolerance, the intolerant must be removed from the community. However, if in the process of removing the intolerant, you cause collateral damage on innocent, tolerant people, then you become the intolerant that needs to be removed.
The paradox of tolerance, as it is commonly argued, has to be one of the worst philosophical arguments actually taken seriously. It basically boils down to an argument from fear - We all believe in the importance of {Sacred Value}, but the Evil Ones are coming to take {Sacred Value} away! By using our own good natures and {Sacred Value} against us, they will claim power, and then destroy {Sacred Value}! The only way to stop them is to destroy {Sacred Value}, thereby depriving them of the ability to use it against us!
Incidentally, here's what Karl Popper himself had to say on the matter; "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."[0]
The form of "intolerance towards the intolerant" he actually discusses in his essay is rather far removed from the sweeping authority to suppression that it bestows in the eyes of many of the people who invoke it. He does not recommend censoring or removing any liberties of the intolerant, unless and until they respond to rational argument by force. Unless they instruct followers to disregard rational argument as itself deceptive. Unless they are inciting actual criminal activity.
The idea that some ideas are in and of themselves too dangerous to allow to exist in the public domain, that rational argument should be monitored, controlled, and suppressed to ensure that "tolerance" remains is nowhere to be seen. It is only when the methods of a liberal democracy (that is, open conversation, debate, the marketplace of ideas) fail catastrophically that Popper sees the need for open intolerance towards those who answer argument with violence.
In fact, the argument of the "paradox of tolerance" is actually, you may be surprised to learn, an argument in favor of autocracy. Its whole point is that liberal democracies can't sustain themselves without a "benevolent despot". Popper was arguing against that idea. Per Wikipedia, again; "In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of despotism, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided. Nonetheless, alternative interpretations are often misattributed to Popper in defense of extra-judicial (including violent) suppression of intolerance such as hate speech, outside of democratic institutions, an idea which Popper himself never espoused."
Popper is indeed the best articulation of the caveat of the OP. We must be intolerant of intolerance. And intolerance is defined as ideas that attack others based on inalienable aspects (skin color, lineage and the like) or intrinsic to our understanding of self determination that does not impinge on the rights of others (religion, beliefs, sexual orientation and the like).
Consider a group of Neo-Nazis that want to stage a peaceful protest espousing their ideology. They get their permits and set out in a town square, chanting all kinds of anti-Semitic and white power nonsense. The question "are the Neo-Nazis being intolerant?" is a tricky one. On one hand, the answer is a resounding "yes," but on the other, they're the proverbial dog that's all bark and no bite.
Consider some local Jewish group that wants to stage a counter-protest. I'll give you the same question: are the Jewish protesters being intolerant? Again, it's a tricky one: they might argue they're being intolerant of the Neo-Nazis' intolerance (as I'm sure Popper would say).
The Neo-Nazis could, in turn, argue that they aren't being intolerant at all - they're just exercising their First Amendment rights. In fact, it's the Jewish counter-protesters that are the ones being intolerant! So we're just going around in circles debating who's being "intolerant," what "intolerant" means, and what it takes to go from "tolerant" to "intolerant" -- the classic sorites paradox[1]. This is all equivocation.
When we look at simpler tests like Mill's Harm Principle, the problem is simplified! If, the Neo-Nazis aren't harming anyone, they're free to do whatever they please -- as are the Jewish counter-protesters. Harm is a lot easier to wrap one's head around than "tolerance," so that's why I think it's a much more palatable litmus test.
It's also fairly amusing that a group adhering to a political doctrine that notoriously ignores falsification love to trot out (a tortured interpretation of) Karl Popper as a meme.
reply